The Impact of the IDEA 2004 on Transition to College for Students with Learning Disabilities

Abstract

The newly reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 contains several significant changes that will directly impact students with learning disabilities (LD) who are preparing for transition to postsecondary education. These modifications include transition planning, reevaluations, new criteria for the diagnosis of LD, and the summary of performance requirement. This article presents an overview of pertinent changes in each of these key areas, as well as discussion of how these modifications will impact students in transition. Recommendations are offered for secondary and postsecondary personnel regarding these changes.

Over the past decade, postsecondary education has been an increasingly viable option for students with learning disabilities (LD). The percentage of full–time college freshmen who self–reported a disability increased from 2.3 percent in 1978 to 9 percent in 1998 (Henderson, 2001; National Center on Educational Statistics, 2003). There is some variation in statistics regarding the exact percentage of students with LD. The National Center on Educational Statistics (2003) reported that students with LD constituted 11 percent of all students with disabilities, while Henderson (2001) reported this figure at 40 percent. A survey of postsecondary offices for students with disabilities indicated that students with LD constitute more than one–third of all students with disabilities served (Harbour, 2004). In any case, there are several indications that this may be a conservative estimate of the actual number of students with LD in college, as many students begin college at 2–year institutions or as part–time students (American Youth Policy Forum and Center on Educational Policy, 2002; National Center on Education Statistics, 2000) and therefore may not be included in these figures.

The increased numbers of students with LD in postsecondary education can be attributed to several factors, including the impact of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA has resulted in improved transition services, particularly with the passage of the 1997 amendments (Hitchings, Retish, & Horvath, 2005). Under IDEA (1997), an annually updated statement of “transition needs” was required beginning at age 14. For college bound students, this statement might have focused on “the child's courses of study.” At age 16, a “statement of needed transition services” was required, to reflect the mandate that transition services be a coordinated set of activities (Hitchings et al., 2005).

Postsecondary education is targeted as an important transition outcome for students with disabilities because of the impact of a college degree on future adult outcomes. Students with disabilities who graduate from college exhibit similar employment rates and annual salaries compared to their counterparts without disabilities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000). Madaus (2006) reported that a sample of 500 university graduates with LD exhibited rates of full–time employment, salary, and receipt of job benefits at levels that are consistent with available statistics on the American workforce in general. These graduates also evidenced more favorable outcomes than their peers with disabilities who do not graduate from college (Madaus, 2006). In light of the generally unfavorable employment statistics for adults with disabilities, the National Council on Disability (2004) stated that “it should be more apparent than ever before that, wherever possible, higher education is key to the economic prospects and aspirations for independence of youth with disabilities” (p. 68).

Despite the importance of college, the mandates of the IDEA and the progress evident in the statistics noted above, students with disabilities are still accessing college at a rate lower than their nondisabled peers. According to data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (Newman, 2005), 76.7 percent of youth with disabilities aspired to attend a postsecondary school or program when surveyed in high school. However, 2 years after high school, only 19 percent were attending a postsecondary school. In comparison, 40.5 percent of youth without disabilities were currently attending a postsecondary school (Newman, 2005). The differences in youth with disabilities and those without disabilities currently attending a 4–year college was even more striking, with 5.7 percent of youth with disabilities attending, compared to 28 percent of youth without disabilities attending (Newman, 2005).

The literature also notes that transition planning for students aspiring to attend college is often insufficient (Cummings, Maddox, & Casey, 2000; Hitchings et al., 2005). Hitchings et al. (2005) examined transition plans for a sample of 110 high school students with disabilities. The authors found that, although 77 percent of the sample expressed interest in attending postsecondary education when in grade 10, this figure fell to 47 percent over 3 years. Only four students had 4–year plans specifically designed for postsecondary education and students were largely not enrolled in college preparatory classes.

Impact of the Idea 2004

The amendments to the recently reauthorized IDEA of 2004 contain several changes that will directly impact students with LD who are preparing for transition to college. Some of the modifications will be apparent as soon as the 2006–2007 academic year, while others will not be evident for several years as younger students work their way through secondary schools. The most notable changes that will impact transition to college are in the areas of assessment and transition planning. The area of assessment is a critical area because students with LD are required to submit documentation to a postsecondary institution if they wish to access protections and services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the law that covers postsecondary institutions and mandates equal access for otherwise qualified students with disabilities). Therefore, modifications to the assessment and evaluation requirements (and in particular to the identification of LD) of the law may have significant impact on students with LD as they seek to access services. As first allowed in IDEA (1997), school district IEP Teams may decide to forgo complete reevaluations every 3 years. Sporadic reevaluations combined with the fact that districts are not required to conduct exit assessments may impact the recency of documentation that students are able to present to postsecondary institutions. Alterations to the way in which districts can identify students with LD may conflict with current documentation guidelines at the postsecondary level. In the area of transition planning, the IDEA (2004) raises the age of transition planning to no later than age 16. There is concern that transition planning beginning even at age 14 is too late for adequate transition planning (Cummings et al., 2000; Hitchings et al., 2005). This change to the IDEA makes knowledge of the law and early planning especially critical for those working with students who may transition to college. The current article will discuss each of these areas and will also describe the summary of performance, a new requirement of the IDEA (2004).

Assessment and Evaluation

Ld Diagnosis

The 1997 version of the IDEA stated that LD may be determined if a child does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels in one or more areas (§ 300.541(a)(1)). In order to make the determination, the law noted that “a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability” must be identified. The regulations further stated that the documentation of a team's determination of eligibility must include a statement of “whether there is a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability that is not correctable without special education and related services” (§ 300.543(a)(6)). The law did not specify the required magnitude of the discrepancy and, as a result, this varied from state to state and, in some cases, district to district (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003).

Despite this significant flaw, and other criticisms and concerns related to the use of the discrepancy model, it became the predominant model for the diagnosis of an LD (for a summary of issues related to the discrepancy model, see Cortiella, 2003; Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert, 2005; Madaus, 2002; Federal Register, June 21, 2005). With the IDEA (2004), the use of the discrepancy model may be reduced in the PreK–12 system, and even eliminated in some states. Section 300.307 of the preliminary regulations (Specific LD) notes that in determining the existence of a specific LD, a state:

(a)(1) May prohibit the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific LD as defined in §300.8;

(2) May not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific LD as defined in §300.8;

(3) Must permit the use of a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research–based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures described in §300.304; and

(4) May permit the use of other alternative research–based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific LD as defined in §300.8.

The long–term impact of these changes remains to be seen. States are allowed to decide if the severe discrepancy model will be “prohibited” or “not required.” The difference is important, for if the discrepancy model is “not required” it may remain permissible and, thus, in practice.

Alternative Models

In the Federal Register outlining the proposed regulations for IDEA (2004), the U.S. Department of Education (2005, May) summarized concerns with the discrepancy model, and recommended the use of “a scientific, research–based intervention alternative” to severe discrepancy. One such method is Response To Intervention (RTI). RTI models do not require the use of standardized tests and, in particular, the use of measures of aptitude for the establishment of a diagnosis of LD. Instead, student ability and progress in learning is measured frequently through the use of local curriculum–based assessments and measures. Students who are not making progress are provided with additional, intensive instruction for a set period of time. Skills and progress are then measured again, and if the student has caught up, the intervention ends. If the student still has not made progress, he or she receives additional intervention. Depending upon the model used, this intervention may be standardized across all students who receive it, or it may be tailored to meet the student's unique needs (Fuchs et al., 2003). If a student continues to not progress, he or she is either determined eligible for special education or for a special education evaluation, depending upon the model used (Fuchs et al., 2003). For more detailed explanations of RTI models, see Fuchs et al. (2003), Kavale et al. (2005), Mellard (2005), National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (2005), Speece, Case, and Malloy (2003), or Vaughn and Fuchs (2003).

One of the major rationales for the use of RTI models is to identify emerging learning problems as early as possible and usually early in elementary school level. These models have their greatest utility at these young ages and counter the “wait to fail” model inherent in the traditional IQ–Achievement discrepancy models. Many standardized tests are not sensitive enough to pick up problems in emerging readers, and the student must fall far enough behind his or her peers to be identified. By that point, RTI advocates note, the student may be too far behind to catch up. RTI models are currently in place for reading (e.g., Denton, Vaughn, & Fletcher, 2003; Vaughn, Linan–Thompson, & Hickman, 2003) and are emerging in the area of mathematics (Fuchs et al., 2005). Noting that most of the evidence related to RTI focuses on younger children, Vaughn and Fuchs (2003) stated that “a response–to–instruction model at the later grades not only depends on the development and testing of procedures for implementation it also requires conceptual analysis to determine its tenability later in the course of academic development” (p. 142).

The U.S. Department of Education (2005) also suggested other alternatives to discrepancy, including the use of achievement measures only, the use of an “absolute level of low achievement” (p. 35802), or using multiple cognitive measures other than IQ to determine aptitude–achievement discrepancies. However, it was stated that “models that incorporate response to a research–based intervention should be given priority” (p. 35802) in attempts to identity students with LD.

Implications for Students in Transition

Postsecondary institutions are covered under the regulations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, not under the regulations of the IDEA (2004). As such, postsecondary institutions are under no obligation to provide assessments for students, nor to pay for the cost of an evaluation. Additionally, Section 504 offers no specific guidance related to the required components of student documentation (McGuire, Madaus, Litt, & Ramirez, 1996), and as such, there is wide variety in both the quality and comprehensiveness of submitted documentation and in guidelines set forth by postsecondary institutions (Prevatt, Johnson, Allison, & Proctor, 2005). Based on the variation in the quality of analyzed documentation, McGuire et al. (1996) suggested a set of guidelines related to comprehensiveness, recency, and appropriateness of instruments to document LD. Similar guidelines were put forth by the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) in 1997 (Prevatt et al., 2005).

Currently, LD documentation guidelines are available in at least four states (Gormley, Hughes, Block, & Lendman, 2005). In the rest of the nation, postsecondary institutions set their own documentation standards regarding what constitutes acceptable documentation to substantiate a current and substantial limitation to a major life function (i.e., learning). Many of these guidelines call for measures of aptitude and achievement, and some guidelines further call for specific evidence of a substantial discrepancy. Gormley et al. presented data related to eligibility requirements from 104 colleges and universities. The authors reported that 67 percent of the responding institutions specifically required one of the Wechsler scales as a measure of aptitude, while 56 percent required the Woodcock Johnson–Revised Tests of Cognitive Ability and 43 percent required the Stanford–Binet 4. Sixty–two percent of the respondents also required the Woodcock Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement, while 42 percent required the Weschler Individual Achievement Test. Six other tests of achievement were also reported (Gormley et al., 2005).

It is not clear how, or if, RTI models have utility for secondary school students, and by extension, college students and adults. However, if the diagnosis of LD is done without a measure of aptitude and a corresponding discrepancy with a measure of achievement, the resulting documentation will not correspond to the traditional documentation requirements at many postsecondary institutions (Gormley et al., 2005). Students with LD who exit secondary education with documentation that does not meet current guidelines at the postsecondary level may be required to obtain additional documentation at their own expense (Shaw, in press). Not only might the resulting financial burden be prohibitive for some students, but the time delay during the reassessment process may cause students to forgo needed accommodations during the first semester, which is a critical one for success at the college level.

It is encouraging that postsecondary documentation requirements are currently being reconsidered. AHEAD, the professional organization of postsecondary disability personnel, recently promulgated a document titled Best Practices: Disability Documentation in Higher Education (2005). It specifies that “ institutional documentation policy should be flexible, allowing for the consideration of alternative methods and sources of documentation, as long as the essential goal of adequately describing the current impact is met.”

Recommendations

As part of the transition planning process, secondary school personnel should assist students in gathering information for the documentation requirements of the institutions that the student is considering. For some institutions, such documentation might be needed for the admissions process and, for others, only after the student decides to matriculate and seek services (Madaus, 2005). In any case, every reasonable effort should be made to provide the components that meet the documentation guidelines. As recommended later, this might be considered to be an individually appropriate transition assessment, which would be consistent with the requirements of IDEA 2004.

The regulations for IDEA 2004 state that school personnel on the IEP Team or parents can request an evaluation or reevaluation:

to determine whether the student continues to be a student with a disability;

to determine if the student's educational needs still require special education and related services;

to identify the present levels of academic achievement and related developmental needs of the student; and

to determine whether any additions or modifications to special education and related services are needed to enable the student to meet the measurable annual goals set out in the IEP and to participate, as appropriate, in the general education curriculum.

Any of these justifications could be used to request a formal evaluation in the student's junior or senior year of high school. Such complete documentation could help the student bridge the potential gap in accessing services at the postsecondary level.

Postsecondary disability service providers should review current documentation (LD) guidelines and policies, particularly in light of the building literature that points to flaws in the IQ–Achievement discrepancy model. For example, is there other data that can be used to determine eligibility, such as data that might be included in the new summary of performance requirement? Although some of this data may be less standardized than what is currently required, in many ways it may be more current and more closely tied to actual classroom performance, strengths, and limitations. As noted, AHEAD's Best Practices: Disability Documentation in Higher Education (2005) calls for more flexibility in considering alternative methods and sources of documentation. In this regard, an all–day symposium planned for the 2006 AHEAD annual conference will be devoted to alternatives to the traditional focus on the discrepancy model. Hopefully, these efforts will lead to the flexibility on the part of postsecondary institutions that is espoused by the professional organization related to disability services.

Reevaluations and Exit Evaluations

Just as the IDEA 1997 allowed school districts to avoid a mandatory and complete reevaluation of students with disabilities every 3 years (the triennial), the IDEA 2004 states:

If the IEP Team and other qualified professionals, as appropriate, determine that no additional data are needed to determine whether the child continues to be a child with a disability, and to determine the child's educational needs, the public agency must notify the child's parents of—

(i) That determination and the reasons for the determination; and

(ii) The right of the parents to request an assessment to determine whether the child continues to be a child with a disability, and to determine the child's educational needs (§ 300.305 (d)(1)).

Furthermore, the IDEA 2004 does not require that districts update a student's testing prior to exit. The law specifies:

The evaluation described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section is not required before the termination of a child's eligibility under this part due to graduation from secondary school with a regular diploma, or due to exceeding the age eligibility for FAPE under State law (§ 300.305(e)(2)).

Instead, the IDEA 2004 mandates the provision of a Summary of Performance (SOP). The legislation states:

(3) For a child whose eligibility terminates under circumstances described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, a public agency must provide the child with a summary of the child's academic achievement and functional performance, which shall include recommendations on how to assist the child in meeting the child's postsecondary goals (§ 300.305(e)(3)).

The regulations are ambiguous regarding the components of the SOP. As a result, there is variation in the drafts proposed by various states. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2006) has developed a one–page form (http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/IDEA2004/spr_meetings/eval_exitsummary.doc) that requests a summary of the student's academic achievement, functional performance, and recommendations for postsecondary outcomes. The introduction to the document states “IDEA 2004 requires that the three sections you see included on this Summary of Performance form must be addressed in written form. HOW you address them is up to you. This form is provided as a tool to help you satisfy this new requirement” (http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/IDEA2004/spr_meetings/evaluations.html). The State of Connecticut (2005; http://www.state.ct.us/sde/deps/special/ED635.pdf) developed a SOP that requires a statement related to a student's present level of performance in three broad areas (i.e., Academic Content, Cognitive, and Functional) and in thirteen subareas (e.g., reading, written language, self–determination, career/vocational). Each area is then directly connected to a statement of “Essential accommodations/modifications and/or assistive technology utilized in high school.” The form requests information related to recommendations related to higher education or vocational training, employment, independent living, and community participation, and concludes with an optional section that elicits the student's perspective.

A similar document that can be adapted by the states was put forth by the National Transition Assessment Summit. Importantly, this SOP has been formally endorsed by a range of professional organizations, including the Learning Disabilities Association of America, the Council for Exceptional Children, and its Division for Learning Disabilities, Division on Career Development and Transition and Council on Educational Diagnostic Services, the Higher Education Consortium for Special Education, and the Council on Learning Disabilities (Shaw, in press). State education agencies and local schools have been encouraged to adopt or adapt it for their use. The document can be found on the Council for Exceptional Children Web site (see http://www.cec.sped.org/pp/pdfs/SOP_Ratified.pdf).

These comprehensive documents offer a new opportunity to promote student self–determination during the transition process. For example, they require a clear statement of the student's primary disability. Although this may seem to be a straightforward piece of information, it is not unusual for students to transition to college unaware of the title of their specific disability (Madaus, Bigaj, Chafaleous, & Simonsen, in press). The student's postsecondary goals are also listed. These goals should come directly from the IDEA 2004 requirement that “measurable appropriate transition goals” be developed for each student with a disability. The section also requests copies of the most recent formal and informal assessment reports that document the disability or functional limitations. This is critical for the documentation of a disability in postschool settings under Section 504. Next, statements of current performance and essential accommodations, modifications, and assistive technology needs are tied to existing assessment data, both formal and informal. These statements serve two critically important purposes. First, they provide information on whether the current disability substantially limits a major life function, such as learning. Second, they have the potential to send the student into the postsecondary environment with information regarding accommodations and assistive technologies that were actually used and found to be effective, rather than those that are listed in the student's IEP, but not used. Additionally, because the statements and the accommodation needs incorporate informal assessment data, it may be possible to bridge the gap between actual day–to–day classroom performance and accommodation needs and norm–referenced assessment data (Madaus et al., in press). This information will be valuable as personnel in the postsecondary Office for Students with Disabilities determine what supports and accommodations are reasonable and appropriate.

The comprehensive SOP also includes a section specifically designed to gather the students’ perspectives related to their strengths, preferences, and needs. To the greatest extent possible, students should be part of the development of the entire document, rather than just this one section. In this manner, students may develop a deeper understanding of their specific disability and their accommodation needs. Most important, this approach will foster students’ self–determination as they contribute to the transition process from secondary to postsecondary education. Madaus et al. (in press) recommended that the SOP be completed over the course of the student's secondary career as a teaching tool that becomes part of a transition portfolio, or as a capstone senior–year project.

Implications for Students in Transition

The requirement of IDEA 2004 allowing an IEP Team to “determine that no additional data are needed to determine whether the child continues to be a child with a disability, and to determine the child's educational needs” may be germane for some students with disabilities. However, this is less so in the case of cognitive disabilities such as LD that can fluctuate depending on how task demands interact with the disability to impact functional performance. Periodic evaluations may be necessary to capture data on a student's current strengths and needs. Additionally, if a student with LD transitions to postsecondary education and seeks services and protections on the basis of the LD, he or she is responsible for submitting documentation that verifies the nature and extent of the disability (McGuire et al., 1996).

As noted, postsecondary institutions are allowed to set their own standards in relation to acceptable documentation. The issue of recency is a critical one in the evaluation of LD documentation at the postsecondary level. Gormley et al. (2005) reported that 45 percent of postsecondary institutions require documentation that is no more than 3 years old, while 17 percent require documentation that is “recent.” Court decisions such as that in Guckenberger v. Boston University (1997) stated that such requirements are reasonable to measure the current nature and impact of cognitive disabilities that can be fluid and changing, such as LD and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Brinckerhoff, McGuire, & Shaw, 2002). Likewise, testing agencies such as the College Board have set requirements related to the recency of documentation for students with LD who are seeking accommodations.

If students leave secondary education with documentation that contains norm–referenced assessments that were conducted well over 3 to 5 years prior, it is possible that they will be denied access to support services at the postsecondary level unless they obtain current testing at their own expense. It is important for professionals, parents, and advocates to be aware of this significant difference between the regulations of the IDEA 2004 and Section 504. As is suggested later in this article, it might be reasonable to use the transition planning component of the IDEA 2004 and specifically, the “appropriate transition assessment” component as a vehicle to assure that students leave secondary school with comprehensive and up–to–date documentation. Additionally, a comprehensive SOP document may provide an important new tool that students can carry into their postsecondary environments to provide both the institution and the student with a stronger understanding of strengths, needs, and postsecondary goals.

Recommendations

Because the IDEA regulations are ambiguous regarding the SOP, there will be state to state and, potentially, district to district variation in the version of the SOP that is adopted. The document put forth by the National Transition Assessment Summit (2005) was designed to meet the needs of secondary and postsecondary personnel, as well as consumers (Shaw, 2005). Because it must apply to all students with all types of disabilities accessing all types of postsecondary environments, there will be some sections that are appropriate, and some that are not. In states and districts where there is variability or less direction regarding what the components of the SOP must be, practitioners are encouraged to consider the use or adaptation of the comprehensive document put forth by the National Transition Assessment Summit.

Secondary school personnel should understand, and explain to the parents of students in transition, that the recommendations listed in a SOP are recommendations only and they do not automatically transfer into postsecondary arenas. Just as postsecondary institutions are not required to accept IEPs and recommendations from secondary schools, they will not be required to accept the recommendations in the SOP. Rather, these statements can be used as important reference points in making decisions appropriate for a particular postsecondary environment and a particular plan of study. Additionally, the IDEA 2004 regulations do not state that the recommendations will lead to student success in the postsecondary environment. This point is specifically noted in the National Transition Assessment Summit SOP (2005) which states “These recommendations should not imply that any individual who qualified for special education in high school will automatically qualify for services in the postsecondary education or the employment setting. Postsecondary settings will continue to make eligibility decisions on a case–by–case basis” (p. 1) [emphasis original].

Postsecondary institutions will begin to see completed SOP documents as soon as the summer and fall of 2006. Postsecondary service providers are encouraged to learn about the intent of the comprehensive SOP and to determine which portions of the document might meet their documentation needs. As postsecondary institutions seek to implement the recommendation in Best Practices: Disability Documentation in Higher Education (AHEAD, 2005) to be flexible by allowing for the consideration of alternative methods and sources of documentation, approaches to disability documentation will emerge which include the data from the SOP.

Transition Planning

Under IDEA (1997), an annually updated statement of “transition needs” was required beginning at age 14. For college bound students, this statement might have focused on “the child's courses of study.” At age 16, a “statement of needed transition services” was required. However, the IDEA 2004 raises the age at which this planning must begin. Specifically, the Transition Services section of IDEA 2004 requires that

Beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child turns 16, or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP Team, and updated annually, thereafter, the IEP must include—

(1) Appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills; and

(2) The transition services (including courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching those goals (§ 300.320 (b)).

Implications for Students in Transition

Although IDEA 2004 increased the age of the commencement of transition planning to no later than age 16, the law specifically notes that the planning may begin at a younger age, if “determined appropriate by the IEP team” (§ 300.320(b)). This is critical information for professionals, parents, and advocates for students with disabilities. Several states (e.g., Connecticut and New York) have specified that planning should begin no later than age 15.

Hopefully, a benefit that will emerge from the new legislation is that the IDEA 2004 emphasizes “measurable postsecondary goals” and linking these to appropriate assessments and transition services (Powers, Gil–Kashiwabara, Geenen, Powers, Balandran, & Palmer, 2005). Powers et al. (2005) commented that this change is warranted given existing data that found most action steps in a set of examined transition plans were minimally related to transition goals. Other recent data has revealed that a high percentage of students with disabilities who express an interest in attending postsecondary education early in their high school experience are not prepared adequately by senior year (Hitchings et al., 2005). Thus, the number of students with disabilities actually enrolling in postsecondary education continues to lag well behind the number of students without disabilities who matriculate (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). Hitchings et al. (2005) noted that 12 years after the initial mandate in IDEA regarding transition, there appears to be a lack of focus on students with disabilities who want to attend postsecondary education. They stated that “transition planning is taking a backseat to the priority of ensuring student success on standardized tests” (p. 33). The emphasis of measurable postsecondary goals that are linked to appropriate assessments and services may actually assist in making more students prepared for college.

Questions that remain to be answered include what constitutes “appropriate transition assessments”? When appropriate, can these assessments be tailored to assist students in the transition to college? Whenever possible, students should exit high school with comprehensive and up–to–date documentation that will meet the guidelines of postsecondary institutions.

Recommendations

If transition planning is to be a coordinated set of activities in a results–oriented process, it will be important for high school personnel to match the kinds of assessment data collected in high school with the expectations for disability documentation in particular postsecondary institutions. Including an updated and comprehensive evaluation during senior year as a specific transition goal and activity could meet the “necessary transition assessment” component of the law.

Whenever possible, transition planning should begin as early as possible. Hitchings et al. (2005) commented that effective transition planning “is a sustained effort that should begin the in the upper elementary grades and be based on comprehensive planning” (p. 33). Decisions related to the types of courses that a student should take (especially how many units of mathematics, science, and foreign language) the level of coursework (e.g., college bound academic vs. general vs. vocational), as well the provision of accommodations must be made early and monitored carefully. The timing of these determinations has tremendous long–term implications for both access to and success in college (Brinckerhoff et al., 2002).

Because the required age for the start of transition planning is permissive (i.e., it states “no later than” 16) it will be important for secondary personnel to be aware of transition timelines for their individual states. Additionally, it may be possible for individual school districts to start the process early to foster successful outcomes for their students.

Summary

Much progress has been made over the past 15 years to make postsecondary education a viable option for students with LD. However, much work remains to be done. Those working to prepare students for transition must be aware of changes found in IDEA 2004, especially in the areas of evaluation and transition planning. Some of the changes, such as the SOP requirement, must be attended to immediately. Others, such as the potential elimination of the discrepancy model, might appear to impact only students in the K–12 system. However, the change could have a significant ripple effect for students as they prepare to transition to postsecondary education and to access services. If followed carefully and in a coordinated manner, the law's emphasis on “measurable transition goals,” appropriate transition assessments, and the SOP may result in a generation of students with LD who are well prepared at the secondary level to be successful at the postsecondary level and who enter postsecondary institutions with comprehensive documentation that bridges the gap between standardized assessment data and informal data that paints a picture of the student's day–to–day skills, needs, and strategies.

Footnotes

Joseph W. Madaus is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology in the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut. His research and publication interests include documentation of learning disabilities, transition, assessment, and postschool outcomes of adults with learning disabilities.

Stan F. Shaw is Co–Director of the Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability and Professor and Coordinator of Special Education at the University of Connecticut. He is currently working on transition assessment/documentation issues, implementing Section 504 in the schools, and developing Program Standards and Performance Indicators for postsecondary disability services.

References

American Youth Policy Forum and Center on Education Policy. (2002). Twenty–five years of educating children with disabilities: The good news and the work ahead. Washington, DC : Author.

Association on Higher Education and Disability. (2005). AHEAD best practices: Disability documentation in higher education. Retrieved September 16, 2005 from http://www.ahead.org/resources/bestpracticesdoc.htm

Brinckerhoff

L. C.

, McGuire

J. M.

, & Shaw

S. F.

(2002). Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Austin, TX : PRO–ED.

Cortiella

(2003). The discrepancy dilemma: Congress ponders a better way to identify learning disabilities. Retrieved November 2, 2005 from http://www.schwablearning.org/articles.asp?r=703&f=relatedlink.

Cummings

, Maddox

C. D.

, & Casey

(2000). Individualized transition planning for students with learning disabilities. The Career Development Quarterly, 49, 60–72.

Denton

C. A.

, Vaughn

, & Fletcher

J. M.

(2003). Bringing research–based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 201–211.

Fuchs

, Mock

, Morgan

P. L.

, & Young

C. L.

(2003). Responsiveness–to–intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.

Fuchs

L. S.

, Compton

D. L.

, Fuchs

, Paulsen

, Bryant

, & Hamlett

C. L.

(2005). Responsiveness to intervention: Prevention and identifying mathematics disability. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 37, 60–63.

Gormley

, Hughes

, Block

, & Lendman

(2005). Eligibility assessment requirements at the postsecondary level for students with learning disabilities: A disconnect with secondary schools? Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18, 63–70.

10.

Guckenberger v. Boston University, 974 F. Supp. 106 (D. Mass, 1997).

11.

Harbour

W. S.

(2004). The 2004 AHEAD survey of higher education disability service Providers. Waltham, MA : Association on Higher Education and Disability.

12.

Henderson

(2001). College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile. Washington, DC : HEATH Resource Center.

13.

Hitchings

W. E.

, Retish

, & Horvath

(2005). Academic preparation of adolescents with disabilities for postsecondary education. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 28(1), 26–35.

14.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004. 20 U. S. C. §1400 et seq. (2004).

15.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (1997).

16.

Kavale

K. A.

, Holdnack

J. A.

, & Mostert

M. P.

(2005). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of Specific Learning Disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 2–16.

17.

Madaus

J. W.

(2006). Employment outcomes of university graduates with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 29, 19–31.

18.

Madaus

J. W.

(2005). Helping students with learning disabilities navigate the college transition maze. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 37, 32–37.

19.

Madaus

J. W.

(2002). Assessment of learning disabilities. In Brinckerhoff

L. C.

, McGuire

J. M.

, & Shaw

S. F.

(Eds.), Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Austin, TX : PRO–ED.

20.

Madaus

J. W.

, Bigaj

, Chafaleous

, & Simonsen

(in press). What key information can be included in a comprehensive summary of performance? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals.

21.

Massachusetts Department of Education. (2006). Summary of student performance. Retrieved February 13, 2006 from http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/IDEA2004/spr_meetings/eval_exitsummary.doc

22.

Mellard

D. F.

(2005). Basic principles of the responsiveness–to–intervention approach. Retrieved November 2, 2005 from http://www.schwablearning.org/articles.asp?r=1056#relart

23.

McGuire

J. M.

, Madaus

J. W.

, Litt

A. V.

, & Ramirez

M. O.

(1996). An investigation of documentation submitted by university students to verify their learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 297–304.

24.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Indicator 34: Services and accommodations for students with disabilities. Contexts of Postsecondary Education. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved February 10, 2006 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2003/section5/indicator34.asp

25.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000, June). Postsecondary students with disabilities: Enrollment, services, and persistence. Stats in Brief. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education.

26.

National Council on Disability. (2004, December). National Disability Policy: A Progress Report, December 2002–December 2003. Washington, DC : Author.

27.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Retrieved on September 1, 2005 from http://www.TeachingLD.org/pdf/rti_final.pdf.htm

28.

National Transition Summit. (2005). Nationally ratified summary of performance model template. Retrieved February 12, 2006 from http://www.cec.sped.org/pp/pdfs/SOP_Ratified.pdf

29.

Newman

(2005). Postsecondary Education Participation of Youth with Disabilities. In Wagner

, Newman

, Cameto

, Garza

, & Levine

(Eds.), 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. Available at http://www.nlts2.org/pdfs/afterhighschool_chp4.pdf

30.

Powers

, Gil–Kashiwabara

, Geenen

S. J.

, Powers

L. E.

, Balandran

, & Palmer

(2005). Mandates and effective transition planning practices reflected in IEP's. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 28(1), 47–59.

31.

Prevatt

, Johnson

L. E.

, Allison

, & Proctor

B. E.

(2005). Perceived usefulness of recommendations given to college students evaluated for learning disability. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18, 71–79.

32.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93–112 as amended, 29 U.S.C. §794. (1973).

33.

Shaw

S. F.

(2005). IDEA will change the face of postsecondary disability documentation. Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 11(1), 7.

34.

Shaw

S. F.

(in press). Legal and policy perspectives on transition assessment and documentation. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals.

35.

Speece

D. L.

, Case

L. P.

, & Molloy

D. E.

(2003). Responsiveness to general education nstruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 147–156.

36.

State of Connecticut Interagency Transition Task Force. (2005). Summary of Performance. Hartford, CT : Connecticut State Department of Education. Available at: http://www.state.ct.us/sde/deps/special/ED635.pdf

37.

U. S. Department of Education. (2005, May). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as Amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Federal Register, 70. Washington, DC : General Printing Office.

38.

U. S. Department of Education. (2005, June). Assistance to states for the education of children with disabilities: Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 70(118), 35782–35891. Washington, DC : General Printing Office.

39.

Vaughn

, & Fuchs

L. S.

(2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.

40.

Vaughn

, Linan–Thompson

, & Hickman

(2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.

41.

Wagner

, Newman

, Cameto

, Garza

, & Levine

(2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report form the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2. Menlo Park, CA : SRI International.