This article presents findings from research that identifies key issues influencing the implementation of the federal transition requirements of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 and policies at the state and local levels; examines the impact and implications of recent general education reform initiatives on secondary education and transition services; and presents major policy, system, and other challenges that must be addressed over the next several years. Specific strategies and recommendations are offered in relation to each of the major challenges examined in this article.

No abstract

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education announced an initiative to improve transitioning to postsecondary education (PSE) for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) by funding the model comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) program. The TPSID provides for grants to create or expand inclusive comprehensive transition and postsecondary programs for students with ID. The authors provide a descriptive report of one such TPSID‐funded demonstration in the state of Hawai‘i and share preliminary feedback from student participants, agency and institutional partners, and project staff. The authors' interviews with the participants and collaborators provided insights and perspectives of the challenges inherent in implementing such a demonstration model. They found that student participants with ID, who were culturally and linguistically diverse, relished the opportunity to participate in PSE and were motivated by the opportunity to learn, meet new people, and contribute to their families. Interagency partners valued the process and benefits of interagency teaming, with most reporting that participating in collaborative teaming resulted in a shift in their views on inclusion of students with ID in PSE. The authors concluded that the implementation of an inclusive PSE transition model can be a transformative process for students with ID, PSE institutions, and support agencies. Furthermore, that collaborative interagency teaming is a powerful method to inform and empower the implementation of change and stimulate and facilitate new opportunities and approaches to improve transition outcomes for students with ID.

No abstract

W ill standards-based education negate the benefits of individualized education for children and youth with disabilities? The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA; Public Law 105-17) and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 legislated a number of new obligations for school reform. National consensus regarding standards-based reforms has been reached on three guiding principles inherent in federal law: (a) there will be challenging standards; (b) all students, including students with disabilities, should have the opportunity to achieve these standards; and (c) policymakers and educators should be held publicly accountable for every student's performance (Council for Exceptional Children, 1998; McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997;Wagner, 1998). However, issues arising in secondary special education suggest we may be heading in two opposing directions simultaneously. McDonnell et al. (1997) noted newer legislation presents a striking difference for students with disabilities because standards-based reform stresses accountability to apply uniform standards, whereas past legislation stressed compliance to apply individualized goals and instruction.According to the American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF) and Center on Education Policy (CEP) report (AYPF & CEP, 2002), tremendous progress has been made regarding access and participation in standards-based curricula and assess-9