Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:36:53.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transitions of Students with Autism and Intellectual Disabilities in Inclusive Settings: The Nexus Between Recommended and Actual Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2020

Therese M. Cumming Open the ORCID record for Therese M. Cumming [Opens in a new window] ,
Iva Strnadová  and
Joanne Danker
Therese M. Cumming*
Affiliation:
UNSW, Sydney, Australia
Iva Strnadová
Affiliation:
UNSW, Sydney, Australia
Joanne Danker
Affiliation:
UNSW, Sydney, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Students with autism and intellectual disabilities experience many transitions during their schooling, and a large body of literature is devoted to best practices in transition planning and support. The Taxonomy for Transition Programming 2.0 is a research-based model that provides best practice suggestions to guide the planning of various transitions and contexts. The researchers aimed to use the current qualitative study to discover the transition planning practices used to support students with autism and intellectual disabilities in inclusive school settings when transitioning from primary to secondary schools and from secondary school to postschool life in New South Wales (Australia). The practices that emerged were then examined for alignment with the Taxonomy for Transition Programming 2.0. The inductive content analysis of interviews with 8 parents and 13 teachers indicated that although most of the areas of the Taxonomy are represented in the planning processes, there is room for improvement, particularly in the areas of formal individual education program and transition planning, student involvement, information sharing, and program assessment. The results highlighted the importance of formal student- and family-centred planning processes to the success of both transitions. The results were used to make further recommendations for future research, policy, and practice.

Keywords

transition planninginclusive educationintellectual disabilityautismTaxonomy for Transition Programming 2.0
Type
Original Articles
Information
Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , July 2020 , pp. 28 - 45
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This manuscript was accepted under the Editorship of Michael Arthur-Kelly.

References

Ankeny, E. M., Wilkins, J., & Spain, J. (2009). Mothers’ experiences of transition planning for their children with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(6), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990904100604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2012). Report on the review of disability standards for education 2005: June 2012. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/report_on_the_review_of_disability_standards_for_education_2005.pdfGoogle Scholar
Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2015). Planning for personalised learning and support: A national resource. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/planning-personalised-learning-and-support-national-resource-0Google Scholar
Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2019). Nationally consistent collection of data on school students with disability (NCCD): 2019 guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.au/what-nationally-consistent-collection-data-school-students-disabilityGoogle Scholar
Beamish, W., Meadows, D., & Davies, M. (2012). Benchmarking teacher practice in Queensland transition programs for youth with intellectual disability and autism. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910366602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, R. M., Suter, J. C., Bruns, E. J., & O’Rourke, K. E. (2011). Implementation research and wraparound literature: Building a research agenda. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 713–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-010-9430-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigby, C., Frawley, P., & Ramcharan, P. (2014). Conceptualizing inclusive research with people with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12083CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klinger, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brede, J., Remington, A., Kenny, L., Warren, K., & Pellicano, E. (2017). Excluded from school: Autistic students’ experiences of school exclusion and subsequent re-integration into school. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 2, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941517737511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruns, E. (2015). Wraparound is worth doing well: An evidence-based statement. In Bruns, E. J. & Walker, J. S. (Eds.), The resource guide to wraparound. Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative.Google Scholar
Carter, E. W., Brock, M. E., & Trainor, A. A. (2014). Transition assessment and planning for youth with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 47, 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466912456241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandroo, R., Strnadová, I., & Cumming, T. M. (2018). A systematic review of the involvement of students with autism spectrum disorder in the transition planning process: Need for voice and empowerment. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 83, 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.07.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, W.-C., & Ku, Y.-M. (2015). The effects of note-taking skills instruction on elementary students’ reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 108, 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.886175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commonwealth of Australia. (2006). Disability standards for education 2005 plus guidance notes. Canberra, Australia: Author.Google Scholar
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Danker, J., Strnadová, I., & Cumming, T. M. (2017). Engaging students with autism spectrum disorder in research through participant-driven photo-elicitation research technique. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 41, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2016.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eber, L., Malloy, J. M., Rose, J., & Flamini, A. (2013). School-based wraparound for adolescents: The RENEW model for transition-age youth with or at risk of emotional and behavioral disorders. In Walker, H. M. & Gresham, F. M. (Eds.), Handbook of evidence-based practices for emotional and behavioral disorders: Applications in schools (pp. 378–393). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forlin, C., Chambers, D., Loreman, T., Deppler, J., & Sharma, U. (2013). Inclusive education for students with disability: A review of the best evidence in relation to theory and practice. Canberra, Australia: The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth.Google Scholar
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodgetts, S., Nicholas, D., & Zwaigenbaum, L. (2013). Home sweet home? Families’ experiences with aggression in children with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 28, 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357612472932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, P. D., Gothberg, J. E., Fowler, C., & Coyle, J. (2016). Taxonomy for transition programming 2.0: A model for planning, organizing, and evaluating transition education, services, and programs. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University. Retrieved from https://www.transitionta.org/Google Scholar
Lindstrom, L., Doren, B., Metheny, J., Johnson, P., & Zane, C. (2007). Transition to employment: Role of the family in career development. Exceptional Children, 73, 348–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., Maxson, L. M., & Jerman, P. L. (1997). The self-directed IEP. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Google Scholar
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Retrieved from https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173Google Scholar
New South Wales Parliament, Legislative Council, Standing Committee on Social Issues. (2012). Transition support for students with additional or complex needs and their families (Report No. 45). Retrieved from https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/2165/120306%20Final%20report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pellicano, L., Bölte, S., & Stahmer, A. (2018). The current illusion of educational inclusion. Autism, 2, 386–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318766166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powers, L. E., Sowers, J., Turner, A., Nesbitt, M., Knowles, E., & Ellison, R. (1996). TAKE CHARGE! A model for promoting self-determination among adolescents with challenges. In Powers, L. E., Singer, G. H. S., & Sowers, J. (Eds.), On the road to autonomy: Promoting self-competence in children and youth with disabilities (pp. 291–332). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
Rodger, S., O’Keefe, A., Cook, M., & Jones, J. (2012). Parents’ and service providers’ perceptions of the family goal setting tool: A pilot study. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 25, 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2011.00674.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schurer Coldiron, J., Bruns, E. J., & Quick, H. (2017). A comprehensive review of wraparound care coordination research, 1986–2014. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 1245–1265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0639-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogren, K. A., & Plotner, A. J. (2012). Transition planning for students with intellectual disability, autism, or other disabilities: Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siperstein, G. N., Parker, R. C., & Drascher, M. (2013). National snapshot of adults with intellectual disabilities in the labor force. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 39, 157–165. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-130658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strnadová, I., & Cumming, T. M. (2016). Lifespan transitions and disability: A holistic perspective. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Strnadová, I., Cumming, T. M., & Danker, J. (2016). Transitions for students with intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder: Carer and teacher perspectives. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 40, 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2016.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427Google Scholar
van Rens, M., Haelermans, C., Groot, W., & van den Brink, H. M. (2018). Facilitating a successful transition to secondary school: (How) does it work?: A systematic literature review. Adolescent Research Review, 3, 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-017-0063-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Javitz, H., & Valdes, K. (2012). A national picture of parent and youth participation in IEP and transition planning meetings. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207311425384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development, 83, 877–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lawrence, M., Kelchner, K., Palmer, S. B., Garner, N., & Soukup, J. (2004). Whose future is it anyway? A student-directed transition planning process (2nd ed.). Lawrence, KS: Beach Centre on Disability.Google Scholar