Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2010, 45(3), 323–338 © Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities Long-term Outcomes of Services for Two Persons with Significant Disabilities with Differing Educational Experiences: A Qualitative Consideration of the Impact of Educational Experiences Diane Lea Ryndak University of Florida Sandra Alper University of Northern Iowa Terri Ward College of St. Rose Jennifer Wilson Montgomery and Jill F. Storch University of Florida Abstract: Though research exists related to effective services in inclusive general education settings for students with significant disabilities, there are no longitudinal investigations of adult outcomes for persons with significant disabilities who received services in inclusive general education settings. This study uses qualitative methods to describe two persons with significant disabilities across settings over time. After originally receiving special education services together in a self-contained special education class in middle school, these individuals then received services in different types of settings (i.e., one received services in self-contained special education settings and one received services in inclusive general education settings) for the remainder of their educational careers. Findings indicated that the individual who received services in inclusive general education settings appeared to have achieved better adult outcomes as reflected in performance in community living and work contexts, interactions with schoolmates and co-workers, independent participation in naturally-occurring activities, and quality and size of a natural support network. In addition, the findings suggest the importance of a “benefactor” on the quality of long-term outcomes achieved by individuals with significant disabilities. The documented benefits of inclusive education for students with significant disabilities are many. Research reveals higher teacher expectations of students, increases in appropriate social behaviors, increased interactions with others, more positive affect, increased friendships, and improved communication skills, as well as improvements in academic behaviors and an increased likelihood of participation in other inclusive settings (e.g., McLaughlin, Ryndak, & Alper, 2008; Ryndak & Fisher, 2003). Although the literature includes critiques of various studies about inclu- Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Diane Lea Ryndak, School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies, 1403 Norman Hall, PO Box 117050, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-7050. sive education and arguments suggesting that inclusive education may have a negative impact upon learners (e.g., Sandler, 1999), no investigations were found that provided performance data on students with significant disabilities or their general education classmates that argued against inclusive education. (For summaries of research regarding inclusive education for students with significant disabilities see Fisher & Ryndak [2001]; McGregor & Vogelsberg [1998]; Ryndak & Fisher.) In fact, Sharpe, York, and Knight (1994) found the opposite—that when serving students with significant disabilities in inclusive general education classes there was no detrimental effects on the educational outcomes of the general education students in the class. In addition, Peck, Staub, Gallucci, and Schwartz (2004) found that parents of general education stu- Long-term Outcomes / 323
dents in classes that included students with significant disabilities indicated that placing their children in the inclusive classes resulted in several social benefits for their children. Fisher, Sax, and Jorgensen (1998) noted that in the United States, the educational system is expected to contribute to the preparation of children for the demands of success as adults (see also Lipsky & Gartner, 1997). In addition, Turnbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer, and Park (2003) suggested the use of a quality of life framework when considering post-school outcomes for adults with disabilities. Considering these concepts together the expectation is that, when students with disabilities exit school, they will be prepared for adult life, their lives will be enriched, and their participation in typical community activities, employment, and residences will be enhanced. Indeed, these assumptions still are reflected in current discussions about access to general education, curriculum, and assessment implications of No Child Left Behind and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) (Browder, Spooner, Wakeman, Trela, & Baker, 2006; Lee et al., 2006; Wehmeyer, 2006). Unfortunately, follow-up studies of special education graduates have indicated that the outcomes of schooling often were inconsistent with expectations for positive post-school adjustment (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). The results of several researchers (e.g., Edgar, 1987; Haring & Lovett, 1990; Johnson et al., 1995) repeatedly have indicated that, following graduation, students with significant disabilities: (a) typically are socially isolated, with little contact with peers who do not have disabilities; (b) experience high rates of inactivity; (c) experience a low level of employment and that, even when they are employed, seldom work a full week and earn very low wages; (d) generally live with a parent, guardian, or relative; and (e) are seldom involved in activities outside of the home. The National Organization on Disability (2000) issued a comprehensive report on adult outcomes for students with disabilities. The data cited in that report were dismal across all disability labels, but particularly for individuals with the most significant disabilities. These individuals were almost totally de- pendent on IEP and transition teams during high school for present and future educational decisions, received limited instruction in decision-making, received very little training related to job skills either at school or in the community, and were uninformed about how to obtain continued services after exiting school. As a result, follow-up studies revealed social isolation, continued reliance on parents for residential needs, and unemployment or underemployment that resulted in reliance on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid waivers to bring incomes up to the poverty level. Several researchers have identified strategies that can lead to more successful adult outcomes (Anderson-Inmann, Knox-Quinn, & Szymanski, 1999; Caldwell & Heller, 2003; Doren & Benz, 1998; Head & Conroy, 2005; McGlashing-Johnson, Agran, Sitlington, Cavin, & Wehmeyer, 2004; Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003; White & Weiner, 2004). These strategies include access to general education settings (Ryndak, Morrison, & Sommerstein, 1999; Zafft, Hart, & Zimbrich, 2004), vocational training both at school and in community job settings (McGlashing-Johnson et al.; White & Weiner), instruction leading to selfdetermination (Caldwell & Heller; Head & Conroy; McGlashing-Johnson et al.; Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003), and assistance to parents in learning how to advocate for their children and obtain and maintain services for them when exiting school (Wang, Mannan, Poston, Turnbull, & Summers, 2004). Emphasizing access to general education settings and curricula, accountability, valued membership in peer groups, and facilitation of friendships that may lead to natural support networks, inclusive education has been considered not only a practice that is consistent with civil rights, but also a way to alleviate the shortcomings and discouraging outcomes of follow-up studies, such as those cited above. Although existing research indicates that inclusive education can benefit students with significant disabilities during their school years (Fisher & Meyer, 2002; Ryndak et al., 1999), there have been no longitudinal follow-up investigations of the lives of individuals with significant disabilities who experienced inclusive education over extended periods of time. There has been no research to date that 324 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2010
Page 1 and 2: Education and Training in Autism an
Page 5: Manuscripts Accepted for Future Pub
Page 9 and 10: TABLE 1 Summary Descriptors of Meli
Page 11 and 12: tions were conducted at their work
Page 13 and 14: her function more independently wit
Page 15 and 16: eluctant to engage in interactions.
Page 17 and 18: ehaviors were consistent with Phill
Page 19 and 20: disabilities. Second, it has promot
Page 21 and 22: youth with severe disabilities. Min
Page 23 and 24: parents of students with intellectu
Page 25 and 26: tributed to such PSE program compon
Page 27 and 28: TABLE 2 Mean Scores of the 7 PSE Pr
Page 29 and 30: that educators’ and parents’ po
Page 31 and 32: gan, 1997). Despite the challenges
Page 33 and 34: ing the total score of the Family A
Page 35 and 36: with the identified factors being r
Page 37 and 38: of a positive outlook has been docu
Page 41 and 42: TABLE 1 Demographic Characteristics
Page 43 and 44: ways in the same interviews where s
Page 45 and 46: In a number of comments, respondent
Page 47 and 48: practitioners assigned both issues
Page 51 and 52: eliability (r .92) and good inter-
Page 53 and 54: TABLE 2 EQCA Adaptive Behaviors: Me
Page 55 and 56: TABLE 5 ERDCP: Means, SDs, and t Te
Page 57 and 58:
teen of these studies (90%) reveale
Page 59 and 60:
practice may have had an influence
Page 61 and 62:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 63 and 64:
ing to questions, (c) the learner f
Page 65 and 66:
around a small instructional table
Page 67 and 68:
TABLE 2 (Continued) 9. Guide studen
Page 69 and 70:
TABLE 3 (Continued) Student Steps B
Page 71 and 72:
TABLE 3 (Continued) Student Steps D
Page 73 and 74:
esponding to errors by interrupting
Page 75 and 76:
Figure 1. Teacher’s number of ste
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 2. Number of inquiry skills
Page 79 and 80:
TABLE 4 Results of Parent Survey It
Page 81 and 82:
data was not simply an artifact of
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
TABLE 1 Students’ Description Sub
Page 87 and 88:
served a communicative function. In
Page 89 and 90:
Descriptive Analysis The first rese
Page 91 and 92:
eakdown whenever it is the case. He
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
stood attribution when two consecut
Page 97 and 98:
within easy reach. The instructiona
Page 99 and 100:
and provided Takao a pen with thin
Page 101 and 102:
Figure 3. Percentages of correct re
Page 103 and 104:
teacher whether we should fully hon
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
components to be effective promptin
Page 109 and 110:
ability (IQ 44, Stanford-Binet Inte
Page 111 and 112:
TABLE 1 Task Analysis for Cooking R
Page 113 and 114:
pographic); and (c) no response, ch
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 2. Percentage of steps perfo
Page 117 and 118:
Figure 4. Percentage of steps perfo
Page 119 and 120:
ture audio feature of the PDA, but
Page 121 and 122:
M. (1992). The effects of self oper
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
TABLE 1 Stages of The Halliwick’s
Page 127 and 128:
plete other steps (Tekin & Kɹrcaal
Page 129 and 130:
Figure 1. Percentage of correct res
Page 131 and 132:
Martin, J. (1981). The Halliwick Me
Page 133 and 134:
systematic instruction to teach fou
Page 135 and 136:
also extremely low with a standard
Page 137 and 138:
Procedural reliability probes measu
Page 139 and 140:
Discussion The purpose of this stud
Page 141 and 142:
(1986). Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Page 143 and 144:
focus on the important adults in th
Page 145 and 146:
cording to the current environment
Page 147 and 148:
that “she felt very inadequate in
Page 149:
tive research. (2 nd Ed.). New Jers
Page 152:
Search the entire archives of Educa
show all

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?