National Survey of Transition Services for DHH Students

1
National Survey of Transition Services for DHH
Students

• DCDT International Conference
• October 18, 2007
• Pamela Luft, Ph.D.
• Kent State University

2
Purpose

• Present preliminary data from a national survey
  of programs serving Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing
  (DHH) students at secondary levels
• Based on directory listing from the American
  Annals of the Deaf, 2007.
• All 50 states and DC

3
Study Rationale

• Few systematic studies examine the extent and
  nature of transition services for DHH students
• Allen, Rawlings, Schildroth (1989) was one of
  the last comprehensive reviews of these services.
  
• Program, student, and counselor surveys
• National Longitudinal Transition Surveys 1 and
  2
• Low response rate from programs

4
Study Rationale

• Publications since have described transition
  concerns but have not collected program data
• Have described transition issues and concerns.
• Bowe, 2003 Danek Busby, 1999 Luckner, 2002.

5
Study Rationale

• Substantial enrollment changes since 1989.
• 1985
• 61 of DHH students (16-22 yrs) served in special
  schools
• 2002
• 28.5 of DHH students (18-21yrs) served in
  special schools (U.S. Dept of Educ., 2004)
• 13.8 DHH (6-21yrs)

6
Study Rationale

• Strong vocational program emphasis in residential
  schools
• What is the impact of placement change on
  transition preparation of DHH studentsWhat are
  programs offering/not offering?

7
Methodology

• State contacts
• Program categorization
• Residential
• Large 35 or more students, K-12
• Small 34 or fewer students
• Programs without accurate number listings are
  contacted and then categorized.
• Random selection of 15 of programs
• For each state and for each category, a 15
  selection rate is identified, rounded to the
  nearest whole number.

8
Sample of Call Rule
9
Methodology

• Random selection
• Call rule used to determine number of programs to
  contact per category within each state
• A random number generator produced a sequential
  (non-repeating numbers) list, according to the
  number of programs of each type, for each state
• Generator www.random.org/.

10
Methodology

• Research assistants contact programs using the
  random numbers list until 15, or at least one
  per program category responded.
• Telephone contact using directory-
• Asked if willing to participate in online or
  telephone survey about transition program
  offerings
• Asked for referral to person knowledgeable about
  DHH programs, if not as listed

11
Methodology

• All contact information entered into spreadsheet
  by state, program type, contact info, and
  researcher
• Confidentiality
• Responses coded on separate form from contact
  form
• Demographic information on response form is
  voluntary

12
Survey Instrument

• Literature review of transition survey
  instruments across 20 articles
• Compilation across five categories
• Employment Preparation
• Postsecondary Preparation
• Independent Living
• Community Participation
• Assessment
• How information is collected regarding the
  students transition areas

13
Initial Survey Instrument

• Response categories
• Academic focus
• Vocational focus
• Multiple disabilities

14
Initial Survey Instrument
15
Initial Survey Pilot

• Respondents were not knowledgeable about all
  program areas
• Survey was overly-lengthy
• Quality of responses was reduced
• Danger of poor interview response rate

16
Final Survey Instrument

• Short online survey using Silhouette (Flashlight
  Online)
• Focused on key program components
• Radio-button responses with comments
• Survey Instrument
• Online Survey
• Excel Results
• Analyze function of Silhouette

17
Preliminary Results

• Under-response overall
• More responses are being added and reminders sent
  out to
• Overrepresentation in certain categories
• Multiple initial contacts to address
  nonresponders
• Additional responses will be deleted from final
  analyses

18
Employment Preparation
19
Comments Employment Preparation

• Most of my students take a Business class with a
  lot of career exploration.
• DHH teachers work closely with our Vocational
  Training Specialist and Transition Coordinator.
• We have a transition aide at each high school
  that works with all SWD.
• We are unable to take students off campus to job
  shadow.
• Our paid work experiences were canceled this year
  due to budget cuts.
• Our DHH students in the general educ curriculum
  have no access to these courses.
• Students participate in weekly employment related
  meetings with peers.
• We offer a comprehensive work training program,
  both on and off campus, including internships,
  supported employment, and job shadowing.

20
Postsecondary Preparation
Other CAD, Photoshop Publisher, desktop pub,
WebCT, web dev graphics
21
Comments Postsecondary Preparation

• Our students have access to a nearby technical
  college and utilize the latest assistive
  technology.
• I help to set up tours, but I cant take the
  students on tours.
• Our district believes that housing and college
  tours is a parent responsibility.
• For AP courses, most students are 16 yrs but
  functioning at K-1 grade reading.
• We are not allowed to have email for students.
• College Day is each Nov and we take field trips
  near the school.
• The high school guidance counselor provides
  information.
• They receive the same services as their
  non-disabled peers.
• My high school students do online research and
  gather information on colleges, their rights at
  college and the work place.

22
Independent Living
Other VRS Sidekicks
23
Independent Living
24
Comments Independent Living

• Our students play the lead role in their IEPs.
• Much of the content depends on their diploma
  option. We had more time and freedom to pursue
  functional skills before NCLB.
• Students only receive functional academics if
  they are intellectually disabled.
• We work with adult service agencies to develop
  plans and help students understand their future.
• We need to focus much more on orienting deaf
  youths to their rights as citizens. They take
  this with mainstream students and often this is
  not addressed to meet their needs.
• All is incorporated into their IEP transition
  plan.
• All of our seniors are required to take a class
  that includes budgeting, banking, insurance,
  relationships, child development, communication,
  etc.

25
Community Participation
26
Comments Community Participation

• We dont focus on leisure time and community
  participation. Some students take part in
  community Deaf theatre.
• This is incorporated into their IEP plan.
• All students must be involved in community
  projects. All students have recreational/athletic
  experiences. We pay registration fees for unique
  activities that some want.
• Students are welcome to join a non-school based
  Teen Club.
• We do touch on these areas but it is fairly
  minimal.
• Community skills are taught only in classes for
  intellectual disabilities.
• Students participate in a social group with deaf
  peers.
• Our students are connected in a variety of ways
  through contests, contacts, etc.

27
Transition Assessments
28
Comments Transition Assessments

• We use the Magellan and WOIS interest tests, as
  well as nonverbal tests with some students.
• We use Choices, FACTS.org, Careers for Me, PLAN.
• Computer-based interest inventories and
  interviews.
• Having a Transition Coordinator, Vocational
  Training Specialists, as well as interpreters has
  really enhanced this portion of our program.
• Ability testing is not a part of determining DHH
  qualification to our program.
• We use the transition planning survey provided by
  our state dept. of educ.
• The assessments are taken in the 8th grade
  because of Carl Perkins and IDEAs requirements.
• This is a strong suit of ours. We work with an
  agency that provides services to the Deaf.

29
Demographics
30
Summary of Results

• Employment Preparation
• Most programs provide
• Career awareness and exploration
• Work experience and information about job
  applications.
• Fewer provide
• Community work in a preferred field (34)
• Career advancement (24)
• Job and career change (27)
• Postsecondary Preparation
• Most provide basic computer training,
  postsecondary and entrance information.

31
Summary of Results

• Independent Community Living
• Most programs provide
• Rights, IEP information, and accommodations
  (81-92)
• Daily Living Skills and adult services (74-82)
• Functional academics (89-95)
• Community participation skills (76-85)
• Transition Assessments
• Most gave interest inventories (85)
• Many gave transition assessments (58)
• Few assessed work adjustment (24)

32
Conclusions and Conundrums

• Disability rights issues
• Disability disclosure (56) vs.
• Legal rights (81) and IEP meetings (90) vs.
• Interpreters (92) and AT (84)
• Global job market issues
• Career advancement (24)
• Job/career change (27)
• Postsecondary preparation for DHH
• Site visits (69) and orientation (61)
• Evaluating disability services supports
• Digging deeperbeyond requirements and
  applications
• Financial aid (79) and housing (44)

33
What is the impact of educational placement
change?

• Comments were more revealing of limitations due
  to
• General education curriculum
• Diploma requirements
• Rural location
• General program availability
• Availability to all through generic school
  services
• Some programs were available, but not necessarily
  offered to all DHH students

34
Limitations and Further Work

• Follow-up interviews
• How much do thorough programs provide in each
  area?
• How far beyond superficial coverage?
• How broadly inclusive of bright vs. challenged
  students?
• What are the challenges of limited programs?
• NCLBA and general education requirements?
• Funding and resources?
• Follow-up comparisons
• Residential vs. large vs. small programs

35
Questions and Comments

• Contact Information
• Dr. Pamela Luft
• pluft_at_kent.edu
• 330-673-0593
• Project Website
• http//www.educ.kent.edu/fundedprojects/TSPT/grant
  .htm

36
References

• Allen, T. E., Rawlings, B. W., Schildroth, A.
  N. (1989). Deaf students and the school-to-work
  transition. Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes.
• Bowe, F. G. (2003). Transition for deaf and
  hard-of-hearing students A blueprint for change.
  The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
  8, 485-493.
• Danek, M. M., Busby, H. (1999). Transition
  planning and programming Empowerment through
  partnership. Washington, DC Laurent Clerc
  National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet
  University. Available at http//clerccenter.gallau
  det.edu/products/index.html
• Luckner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the
  transition of students who are deaf or hard of
  hearing. Austin, TX PRO-ED.
• NLTS2 accessed from http//www.nlts2.org/
• Silhouette (Flashlight Online https//my.wsu.edu/p
  ortal/page?_pageid177,74111_dadportal_schemaP
  ORTAL)
• U.S. Department of Education. (2004)Twenty-sixth
  annual report to Congress on the implementation
  of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
  Act. Washington, DC author. Retrieved 9/7/07
  from http//www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/
  2004/index.html