Early Intervention and Secondary/Transition Services: Harbingers of Change in Education

Abstract

Clues to the future of the rapidly changing field of special education may be glimpsed in the supposedly disparate services of early intervention and secondary/transition to adulthood. Upon examination, early intervention for infants and toddlers with special needs and their families and future-oriented services for adolescents and young adults with disabilities share striking similarities. Recognition of the congruity between structures at these two levels is essential to effective local systems planning for individuals with developmental delays and disabilities. In addition, recognition of effective practices for service provision at one level can inform and empower practitioners across the service system. At both levels the organizational structures prompted by PL 101-476, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990, 1991), and emerging definitions of recommended practices help to provide the conceptual foundation for a new model for integrated, uninterrupted services to persons with special needs at all ages. • The significant departures in organization and practice at the early intervention and secondary/transition levels challenge traditional special education systems and, as a result, require dramatic rethinking in personnel preparation. In this article we explore similarities across these two age levels, describe differences in services at each level, recommend actions to improve the coordination of developmentally appropriate services across the life span for individuals with disabilities and their families, and address the implications of these issues for providers of personnel development and services to consumers. The commonality of approaches to persons with special needs in infancy and adolescence is rooted in the organizational structures defined by federal law. Through interagency collaboration, these organizational structures are designed to be: (a) horizontally administered, (b) consumer-driven, and (c) community-referenced. At both levels effective services are likely to be articulated through local coordinating councils and by personnel carrying out the service coordination functions mandated by federal and state policies, and at both levels the potential exists for full-scale service integration.

An Analysis of Collaboration in a State-Level Interagency Transition Team

“…Effective and dynamic collaboration among agencies, family members, and students is an ongoing process that is necessary for successfully preparing young adults with disabilities for their transition to adult life (Morningstar, Kleinhammer-Tramill, & Lattin, 1999; Kleinhammer-Tramill, Rosenkoetter, & Tramill, 1994; Noyes & Sax, 2004). Furthermore, collaboration is legally required by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, which mandates that transition services must be coordinated and must involve a results-oriented process.…”

“…It evolves over time through the involvement of multiple agencies, such as businesses, health care providers, social services, and educators (Johnson, Zorn, Yung Tam, Lamontagne, & Johnson, 2003). Each agency participates within its own system and at its own pace, while continually working toward providing better services in collaboration with others (Kleinhammer-Tramill et al, 1994; Timmons, Cohen, & Fesko, 2004). Successful interagency collaboration needs to be sustained, systemic, and characterized by the following: (a) key positions jointly funded by education and adult services, (b) monthly interagency planning meetings, (c) cross-agency training opportunities, and (d) the use of a variety of practices with collaboration and team building (Benz et al, 2000; Hasazi, Furney, & DeStefano, 1999).…”

Effects of Community Transition Teams on Interagency Collaboration for School and Adult Agency Staff

“…Additional research indicates that collaboration with adult agencies may be an indicator for more successful adult outcomes for young adults with disabilities (Agran, Cain, & Cavin, 2002;Benz, Johnson, Mikkelsen, & Lindstrom, 1995;Kleinhammer-Tramill, Rosenkoetter, & Tramill, 1994;Wehman, 1996).…”

“…Another study found that sustainability of transition innovations is positively correlated to programs that (a) have the support of at least one key administrator, (b) produce positive student outcomes that are valued by school and community stakeholders, and (c) create a clear and unique role for their services that meets identified needs within the district (Benz, Lindstrom, Unruh, & Waintrup, 2004). Additional research indicates that collaboration with adult agencies may be an indicator for more successful adult outcomes for young adults with disabilities (Agran, Cain, & Cavin, 2002; Benz, Johnson, Mikkelsen, & Lindstrom, 1995; Kleinhammer-Tramill, Rosenkoetter, & Tramill, 1994; Wehman, 1996).…”

“…Community transition teams work to create community cohesiveness and increase community capacity by working to avoid service duplication and by targeting emerging community transition needs (Clark & McDonnell, 1994). These teams can create multiple formal and informal relationships, in addition to interagency agreements, thereby providing a potential for seamless services (Kleinhammer-Tramill et al, 1994; Morningstar et al, 1999).…”