Evidence of Academic Access in Higher Education

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Evidence of Academic Access in Higher Education College Programs That Include Students with Intellectual Disabilities
Physical Description:
1 online resource (206 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Voelker, Denise M
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ed.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Special Education, Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies
Committee Chair:
REPETTO,JEANNE B
Committee Co-Chair:
LANE,HOLLY BARNES
Committee Members:
CROCKETT,JEAN B
MILLER,DAVID
WEBB,KRISTINE W

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
college -- disabilities -- inclusive -- survey
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Special Education thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Postsecondary education programs for students with intellectual disabilities have appeared on college campuses and in the literature for decades.  Inclusive academic access, for students with intellectual disabilities in college settings, is a newer innovation.  As colleges develop programs for students with intellectual disabilities, they will need examples and other guidance to implement inclusive academic access effectively.  The Think College Standards have been developed to reflect the domains and practices considered essential to the provision of inclusive higher education and inclusive academic access.  The first standard and related benchmarks were used as a frame of reference for the survey of inclusive academic access on college campuses.  Results suggest that (a) the field of transition and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities has made progress toward implementing inclusive academic access in higher education settings, (b) certain specific benchmarks have become more prevalent practices across transition and postsecondary programs than others, (c) certain program characteristics of college programs predict better implementation of inclusive academic access, and (d) specific program characteristics predict the implementation of specific benchmarks.  Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Denise M Voelker.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: REPETTO,JEANNE B.
Local:
Co-adviser: LANE,HOLLY BARNES.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0046180:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EVIDENCE OF ACA DEMIC ACCESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION : COLLEGE PROGRAMS THAT INCLUDE STUDENTS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES By DENISE MICHELLE VOELKER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TH E DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Denise Michelle Voelker

PAGE 3

3 To my amazing children, my loving parents, and my wonderful husb and who inspire everything that I do and ma ke the impossible seem possible

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my chairperson, Dr. Jeanne Repetto, for believing in me when I often doubted myself. Many thanks to Dr. Kris Webb and Dr. Jean Crockett for bringing t heir expertise to my team. I owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. David Miller for quickly responding to my frequent questions and cries for help Thank you to Holly Lane and Martha League for getting me halfway down this path in 2004. I am grateful to all my doctoral committee members for their understanding when I swerved fr om my path on a few occasions, and I thank Dr. Penny Cox for helping me to get back on course. My gratitude extends to Francisco Jimenez wh o helped me make sense of my statistical f indin gs. I must also express sincere gratitude to Shaira Rivas Otero for helping me to get all my doctoral credits meetings, and other requirement s scheduled and documented appropriately. My deepest love and appreciation go to my husband and children. I than k them for supporting me on this long journey. I also thank my parents for their lifelong, unwavering belief in me.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 13 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 14 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 16 Policy Foundation for the Education of Students with Intellectual Disabilities ..................... 16 The Education for All Handic apped Children Act (EHA) of 1975 ................................ 16 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ................................ ....................... 18 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 ................................ ..................... 21 Program Standards from the Association on Higher Education And Disability (AHEA D) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 23 The Assistive Technology Act of 2004 ................................ ................................ ........... 23 Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008 ................................ ..................... 24 Current Realities in Postsecondary Education for Students with Intellectual Disabilities ..... 24 Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectua l Disabilities .............. 26 Think College ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 27 Think College Standards ................................ ................................ ................................ 28 In clusive Academic Access ................................ ................................ ............................. 29 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 30 Background of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 32 Definitions from the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA 2008) ........................ 32 Comprehensive transition and postsecondary (CTP) program ................................ 32 Transition and postsecondary program for students with intellectual disabilities ... 33 Student with an intellectual disability ................................ ................................ ...... 33 Definitions from Literature on Postsecondary Education for Students with Intellectual Disabilities ................................ ................................ ................................ 34 Intellectual disabilities ................................ ................................ .............................. 34 Postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities ......................... 34 Program for students with intellectual disabilities ................................ ................... 34 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 34 Methods and Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 35 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 35 Data Collection and Analysis ................................ ................................ .......................... 35 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 35

PAGE 6

6 Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 36 Organization of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 37 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ................................ 38 History of Transition Postsecondary Programs ................................ ................................ ...... 38 Previous Reviews of Literature ................................ ................................ .............................. 40 Purpose of this Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 41 Methodol ogy ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 42 Think College Standard 1: Inclusive Academic Access ................................ ......................... 43 Quality Indicator 1.1: Access to a Wide Array of Course Types ................................ .... 43 Benchmark 1.1D: Existing courses rather than separate courses for only students with disabilities ................................ ................................ ....................... 43 Benchmark 1.1A Enrollment in noncredit courses ................................ ................ 47 Benchmark 1.1B: Auditing or participating in college courses ............................... 48 Benchmark 1.1C: Credit courses aligned w ith student career plans ........................ 50 Benchmark 1.1F: Personal, academic, and career goals determined through person centered planning ................................ ................................ ...................... 54 Quality Indicator 1.2: Address Issues that May Impact College Course Participation ... 56 Benchmark 1.2C: Access to the accommodations through the disability services office ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 56 Benchmark 1.2F: Access to peer support ................................ ................................ 59 Benchmark 1.2E: Educational coaches ................................ ................................ .... 62 Be nchmark 1.2G: Universal design for learning ................................ ...................... 64 Previous Surveys of Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities ............................. 66 State ment of the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 70 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 71 What is the State of Practice? ................................ ................................ .......................... 71 What Is Our Progress toward the Inclusive Academic Access Standard? ...................... 71 Are Contextual Factors Limiting What Programs Have to Offer? ................................ .. 73 Limitations of Literature Review ................................ ................................ ............................ 73 Future of Transition Postsecondary Programs ................................ ................................ ........ 73 Survey of Inclusive Academic Ac cess on College Campuses ................................ ................ 74 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES ................................ ................................ ........................ 75 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 75 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 75 Population and Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 75 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 76 Instrument: Internet Survey ................................ ................................ ............................. 77 Sample: All Identified Programs ................................ ................................ ..................... 77 Survey Development ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 78 Modifications ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 78 Scaling ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 78 Program Eligibility ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 79 Survey Items ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 79

PAGE 7

7 Eligibility ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 79 Program characteristics ................................ ................................ ............................ 79 Level of Implementation for Each Benchmark ................................ ................................ ...... 82 Review of Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 85 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 85 Procedures and Time period ................................ ................................ ............................ 85 Incentives ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 85 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 85 Square Test ................................ ................................ .............................. 85 Assumptions of the chi square test of independence ................................ ............... 86 Collapsing le vels of variables in a chi square test ................................ ................... 86 ................................ ................................ .............. 87 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 88 Basis for Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ 88 Research Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 88 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 89 Characteristics of Responding Programs ................................ ................................ ......... 89 Types of students ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 90 Program models ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 91 Approved and model demonstration programs ................................ ........................ 91 Organizations administering transition postsecondary programs ............................ 92 Program settings ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 92 Frequency Distributions ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 93 Implementation of Inclusive Academic A ccess Benchmarks ................................ ................ 93 Quality indicator 1.1: Access to a Wide Array of College Courses Attended by Students Without Disabilities ................................ ................................ ...................... 93 Benchmark 1.1D: Access to existing courses ................................ .......................... 95 Benchmark 1.1E: College course access not limited to a pre determined list ......... 95 Be nchmark 1.1A: Access to noncredit courses ................................ ........................ 95 Benchmark 1.1B: Access to audited courses or informal participation ................... 96 Benchmark 1. 1C: Access to credit courses ................................ .............................. 96 Benchmark 1.1F: Alignment of courses with individualized goals ......................... 97 Quality indicator 1.2: Address issues that may impact course participation ................... 98 Benchmark 1.2A: College policies regarding placement tests and prerequisites .... 98 Benchmark 1.2C: Access to college disability services for accommodations ......... 99 Benchmark 1.2D: Access to and instruction in the use of needed technology ........ 99 Benchmark 1.2G: Faculty training in universal design for learning principles ....... 99 Benchmark 1.2F: Access to peer support ................................ ............................... 100 Benchmark 1.2E: Access to educational coaches ................................ .................. 100 Benchmark 1.2B: Access to and instruction in the use of needed transportation .. 100 Prevalence of Practices ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 101 Access to a Wide Array of College Course Types ................................ ........................ 101 Address Issues that May I mpact College Course Participation ................................ ..... 102 Practices Implemented Across Program Characteristics ................................ ............... 102 Inferential Statistics: Tests of Independence and Measures of Association ......................... 105

PAGE 8

8 Programs for Different Age Groups Implementing Benchmarks ................................ .. 105 Program Types Implem enting Benchmarks ................................ ................................ .. 107 Organizations Implementing Benchmarks ................................ ................................ .... 108 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 141 Purpose of This Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 141 Summary and Discussion of Findings ................................ ................................ .................. 141 Implementation of Think College Standard One: Inclusive Academic Access ................... 142 Access to Needed Transportation and Transportation Instruction ................................ 142 Access to Needed Technology ................................ ................................ ...................... 143 Alignment of Courses with Individualized Goals ................................ ......................... 144 Access to Existing College Courses ................................ ................................ .............. 145 Options for Access to College Courses ................................ ................................ ......... 146 Access to Educational Coaches ................................ ................................ ..................... 148 Accommodations through t he Disability Services Office ................................ ............. 149 UDL Training for Faculty ................................ ................................ ............................. 149 Modification of Policies to Enable Course Participation by Studen ts with ID ............. 150 Prevalence of Practices ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 151 Implementation of Benchmarks by All Programs ................................ ......................... 151 Prevalence of Practices Across Program Categories ................................ ..................... 153 CTPs and TPSIDs Implementing Benchmarks ................................ ............................. 157 Re lationships Between Program Characteristics and Benchmarks Implemented ................ 158 Programs for Different Age Groups Implementing Benchmarks ................................ .. 158 Program Models Implementing Benchmarks ................................ ................................ 159 Organizations Implementing Benchmarks ................................ ................................ .... 160 Evidence of Progress Toward Inclus ive Academic Access ................................ .................. 161 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 161 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 163 Recomme ndations for Further Research ................................ ................................ .............. 163 APPENDIX A TRANSITION AND POSTSECONDARY PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES ABSTRACTS ................................ .............................. 167 B THINK COLLEGE STANDARDS WITH IMPLEMENTATION SCALE* ...................... 194 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 199 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 206

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Types of students served by responding transition postsecondary programs. ................. 110 4 2 Program types of responding transition postsecondary programs. ................................ .. 110 4 3 Status of responding transition postsecondary programs. ................................ ................ 110 4 4 Administrative Organizations of Responding Programs. ................................ ................ 110 4 5 Settings where students with intellectual disabilities p articipate and enroll. ................... 111 4 6 Programs implementing access to existing courses. ................................ ........................ 111 4 7 Program types imple menting access to existing courses. ................................ ................ 111 4 8 Organizations implementing access to existing courses ................................ ................. 112 4 9 P rograms implementing courses beyond a pre determined list. ................................ ...... 112 4 10 Program types implementing courses beyond a pre determined list. .............................. 112 4 11 Organizations implementing courses beyond a pre determined list. ............................... 113 4 12 Programs implementing access to noncredit courses. ................................ ...................... 113 4 13 Program types implementing access to noncredit courses. ................................ .............. 113 4 14 Organizations implementing access to noncredit courses. ................................ .............. 114 4 15 Programs implementing access to audited courses. ................................ ......................... 114 4 16 Program types implementing access to audited cour ses. ................................ ................. 114 4 17 Organizations implementing access to audited courses. ................................ .................. 115 4 18 Programs implementing access to i nformal participation in college courses. ................. 115 4 19 Program types implementing informal participation in college courses. ........................ 115 4 20 Organizations implementing informal participation in college courses. ......................... 116 4 21 Programs implementing enrollment in credit bearing courses. ................................ ....... 116 4 22 Program types implementing enrollment in credit bearing courses. ............................... 1 16 4 23 Organizations implementing enrollment in credit cou rses. ................................ ............. 117

PAGE 10

10 4 24 Programs implementing receipt of credit for courses. ................................ ..................... 117 4 25 Program types implementing receip t of credit for courses. ................................ ............. 117 4 26 Organizations implementing receipt of credit for courses. ................................ .............. 118 4 27 Programs implementing courses aligned with postsecondary plans. ............................... 118 4 28 Program types implementing courses aligned with postsecondary plans. ....................... 118 4 29 Organizations implementing courses aligned with postsecondary plans. ........................ 119 4 30 Programs implementing alignment with personal, academic, and career goals ............. 119 4 31 Program types implementing alignme nt with personal, academic, career goals. ............ 119 4 32 Organizations implementing alignme nt with personal, academic, career goals. ............. 120 4 33 Programs implementing person centered planning. ................................ ........................ 120 4 34 Program types implementing person centered planning. ................................ ................. 120 4 35 Organizations implementing person centered planning. ................................ ................. 121 4 36 Programs implementing modification of testing policies. ................................ ............... 121 4 37 Program types implementing modification of testing policies. ................................ ....... 121 4 38 Organizations implementing modification of testing policies. ................................ ........ 122 4 39 Programs implementing modification of prerequisite polic ies. ................................ ....... 122 4 40 Program types implementing modification of prerequisite policies. ............................... 122 4 41 Organizations impleme nting modification of prerequisite policies. ................................ 123 4 42 Programs implementing accommodations through the DSO. ................................ .......... 123 4 43 Program types implementing accommodations through the DSO. ................................ .. 123 4 44 Organizations implementing accommodations through the DSO. ................................ .. 124 4 45 Programs implementing access to needed technology. ................................ .................... 124 4 46 Program types implementing access to needed technology. ................................ ............ 124 4 47 Organizations implementing access to needed technology. ................................ ............ 125 4 48 Programs implementing technology instruction for students. ................................ ......... 125

PAGE 11

11 4 49 Program types implementing technology instruction for students. ................................ 125 4 50 Organizations implementing technology i nstruction for students. ................................ .. 126 4 51 Programs implementing UDL training for faculty. ................................ .......................... 126 4 52 Program types imple menting UDL training for faculty. ................................ .................. 126 4 53 Administrative organizations implementing UDL training for faculty. .......................... 127 4 54 Programs implementing access to peer supports. ................................ ............................ 127 4 55 Program types implementing access to peer supports. ................................ .................... 127 4 56 Organizations implementing access to peer supports. ................................ ..................... 128 4 57 Programs implementing access to paid educational coaches. ................................ .......... 128 4 58 Program types implementing access to paid educational coaches. ................................ .. 128 4 59 Organizations implementing paid educational coaches. ................................ .................. 129 4 60 Programs implementing access to needed transportation. ................................ ............... 129 4 61 Program types implementing access to needed transportation. ................................ ....... 129 4 62 Organizations implementing access to needed transportation. ................................ ........ 130 4 63 Programs implementing transporta tion instruction for students. ................................ ..... 130 4 64 Program types implementing transportation instruction for students. ............................. 130 4 65 Organizations implementing transportation instruction for students. .............................. 131 4 66 Observed and expected frequencies: Implementing access to existing courses. ............. 131 4 67 Relationship between type students and access to existing courses. ............................... 131 4 68 Observed and expected frequencies: Implementing courses beyond a list. ..................... 131 4 69 Relationship between type of students and access to courses beyond a list. ................... 132 4 70 Observed and expected frequencies: Implementing credit for courses. .......................... 132 4 71 Relationship between type of students and credit for courses. ................................ ........ 132 4 72 Observed and expected frequencies: Accommodations through the DSO. ..................... 132 4 73 Relationship between type of students and accommodations throug h the DSO. ............ 132

PAGE 12

12 4 74 Observed and expected frequencies: UDL training for professors. ................................ 133 4 75 Relationship betw een type of students and UDL training for professors. ....................... 133 4 76 Observed and expected frequencies: Access to existing courses. ................................ .... 133 4 77 Relationship between type of program and access to existing courses. .......................... 133 4 78 Observed and expected frequencies: Courses beyond a pre determined list. .................. 133 4 79 Relationship between type of program and access to courses beyond a list. ................... 133 4 80 Observed and expected fre quencies: Accommodations through the DSO. ..................... 134 4 81 Relationship between type of organization and accommodations through DSO. ........... 134 4 82 Observed and expected frequencies: UDL training for faculty. ................................ ...... 134 4 83 Relationship between type of organization and UDL training for faculty. ...................... 134 4 84 Observed and expected frequencies: Enrollment in credit courses. ................................ 135 4 85 Relationship between type of organization an d enrollment in credit courses. ................ 135 4 86 Observed and expected frequencies: Receipt of credit for courses. ................................ 135 4 87 Relationship between type of organization and receipt of credit for courses. ................. 135 4 88 Implementation of benchmarks by all programs. ................................ ............................ 136

PAGE 13

13 LIST O F FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Ranked frequency of implementation: Benchmarks related to course access. ................ 137 4 2 Ranked frequency of implementation: Address issues that impact participation ............ 138 4 3 Mean number of benchmarks implemented ................................ ................................ ..... 139 4 4 Mean number of benchmarks implemented by CTPs and TPSIDs. ................................ 140 5 1 Ranked frequency of implementation of benchmarks ................................ ..................... 165 5 2 Characteristics associated with highest implementation of benchmarks. ........................ 166

PAGE 14

14 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CTP A comprehensive transition and postsecondary program is designed to support students with intellectual disabilities who want to continue academic, career, and independent living instruction to prepare for gainful employment. HEOA The Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008) created first time opportunities for students wit h intellectual disabilities who wish to attend college and higher education institutions that wish to serve students with intellectual disabilities. ID EA The Individuals with Disabilities Education improvement Act (2004) includes mandatory transition serv ices for secondary students with disabilities, beginning no later than age 16 and continuing until students graduate from high school or reach age 22 IDD Intellectual and developmental disabilities refers to a broad group of individuals and includes in dividuals with autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, multiple disabilities, and other lifelong disabilities manifested prior to age 18. ID impairment characterized by signifi cant limitations in intellectual and cognitive functioning, as well as adaptive behavior expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills. TC Think College at the University of Massachusetts Boston is the national coordinating center for com prehensive transition and postsecondary programs, transition postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities, and other college programs serving student s with intellectual disabilities. Think College has developed a set of standards for inclusive higher education to guide programs toward promising practices. TPSID Transition postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities must provide individual supports and services for the academic and social inclusion of students w ith intellectual disabilities in academic courses, extracurricular activities, and other aspects of the institution of

PAGE 15

15 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florid a in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for th e Degree of Doctor of Education EVIDENCE OF ACADEMIC ACCESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION : COLLEGE PROGRAMS THAT INCLUDE STUDENTS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES By Denise Michelle Voelker Decemb er 2013 Chair: Jeanne Repetto Major: Special Education Postsecondary education programs for students with intellectual disabilities have appeared on college campuses and in the literature for decades. Inclusive academic access, for students with intelle ctual disabilities in college settings, is a newer innovation. As college s devel op programs for students with intellectual disabilities, they will need examples and other guidance to implement inclusive academic access e ffectively. The Think College S tan dards have been developed to reflect the domains and practices considered essential to the provision of inclusive higher education and inclusive academic access. The first stand ard and related benchmarks were used as a frame of reference for the survey of inclusive academic access on college campuses. Results suggest that (a) the field of transition and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities has made progress toward implementing inclusive academic access in higher educati on set tings, (b) certain specific benchmarks have become more prevalent practices across transition and postsecondary programs than others, (c) certain program characteristics of college programs predict better impl ementation of inclusive academic access and (d ) specific program characteristics predict the implementation of specific benchmarks. Implications for future researc h and practice are discussed.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Policy Foundation for the Education of Students with Intellectual Disabilities The p ast four decades have seen a variety of legislative and policy changes that have gradually set the stage for inclusive higher education. The cumulative mandates and assurances that have enabled students with disabilities and, more recently, students with intellectual disabilities to pursue postsecondary education in colleges and universities ar e discussed in this review of legislation and policy. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) of 1975 Less than 40 years ago, persons with intellectual disabilities did not have the right to access public education in the United States (Grigal, Hart, & Lewis, 2012). In the 1970s, parents attend the public schools (Grig al, Hart, & Weir, 2013 ). Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Act (PL 94 142) in 1975 and created access to free and appropriate public education for all students with disabilities and introduced the concept of least restrictive learning envi ronments. Nevertheless, education practices reflected the knowledge base of their time. Center schools, self contained special education classrooms, and sheltered employment hildren and youth with intellectual disabilities (Grigal, Hart, & Lewis, 2012). Fortunately, expe ctations for students with intellectual disabilities (ID) evolved over time. Changes in legislation, policy, and practice both prompted and reflected changin g expectations. In 1990, the EHA was replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, P.L. 101 n the individual, rather than a ny condition the individual may have. The 29t h Annual Report to Congress (2007) indicated that over 547,000 students in

PAGE 17

17 the U.S. were served under the disability Under IDEA 2004 (P.L.108 446 ), mental retardation means significantly subaverage general intellectual fu n ctioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period, that adversely affects a child's educational performance Mental retardation is a developmental disability, a category often applied in serv ice delivery which also includes autism and other disorders that manifest during the developmental period (birth to age 18). In school based settings, mental retardation is one of 13 categories of disability under which children may be identified for sp ecial education services under the current reauthorization of IDEA (2004) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Impr ovement Act ( P.L.108 446). According to the Ame rican Association on Intellectu al and Dev elopmental Disabilities (AAIDD) The term int ellectual d isability covers the same population of individuals who were diagnosed previously with Mental Retardatio n in number, kind, level, type, duration of disability, and the need of people with this disability for individualized services and supports. Furthermore, every individual who is or was eligible for a diagnosis of Mental Retardation is eligible for a diagnosis of intellectual d isability. In October 2010, a bill to change references in Federal law to mental retardation to references to an intell ectual disability, and to change references to a mentally retarded individual to references to an individual with an intellectual disability, was signed into law by Pre sident ) did not change the de only the term to be used. Students with intellectual disabilities (ID) can remain in public school, continuing services under IDEA (2004) through age 21. Students with ID who begin attending college bef ore exiting public education are served under IDEA and protected by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ( P. L. 93 112 ), as well as the Americans wit h Disabilities Act (ADA)

PAGE 18

18 of 1990 ( P. L. 101 336 ) and the Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act (ADAA) of 2008 ( P.L. 110 325 ). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) The IDEA ( P.L. 108 446) improved on the EHA by requiring transition planning for students with disabilities. This addition came in response to outcome studies that revealed that students with disabilities were not being prepared to live and work independently (Landmark, Ju, & Zhang, 2010; Kardos, 2011). Under IDEA 1990, transition planning was first defined (34 CFR § 300.18) as a coordinated set of activities for a student designed within an outcome oriented process which promotes movement from school to post school activities, including postsecondary education, vocational training, integrated employment including supported employment, continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living or community participation In 2004, IDEA (P.L. 108 446) redefined as a coordinated set of activities for a child with a disability that is designed to be ts activities, including postsecondary education. Under IDEA 2004 ( 34 CFR § 300.43 ) t ransition services now include instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of employment and other post school adult living objectives, and, if appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation. Under IDEA 2004 (P.L. 108 446) measurable postsecondary goals, including postsecondary education when appropriate, must be included in the Individualized E ducation Program (IEP). Dually enrolled students a re high school students, ages 18 through 21 with IEPs and continuing eligibility under the IDEA, who receive services in higher education settings. For students graduating or aging out of public school services under the Individuals with Disabilities

PAGE 19

19 Act (2004), the Summary of Performance is a required document that may be used to help inform disability documentation in college (Shaw, Keenan, Madaus, & Baner jee, 2010; Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2013). In most cases, college based transition services meet the IDEA requirements for Least Restrictive Environmen t (LRE) and exceed the level of LRE access that could be provided to 18 22 year old students in a high school setting alone (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2013). The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973) defines an individual disa bility as a person with a physical or mental major life activities Section 504 does not discuss students with intellectual disabilities specifically. However, the law protects the rights of people with d isabilities to participate in and benefit from federally funded programs, services, and benefits (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2013). Section 504 mandates that no qualified individual be excluded from or denied the benefits of any program receiving federal finan cial assistance. Since all public, and most private, colleges and universities receive federal financial assistance, they must comply with the provisions of Section 504, including any reasonable accommodations that enable a student with disabilities to be nefit from education. Su b part E applies to postsecondary education programs and activities and contains language regarding accessibility and accommodations. Under Subpart E, tests must accurately reflect achievement, or whatever factors the test purports to m impaired ) Section 104.44 of Subpart E addresses academic accommodations, including course substitutions, changes in course delivery, and the provision of auxiliary aids and s ervices (Katsiyannis, Zhang, Landmark, & Reber, 2009 ).

PAGE 20

20 The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education is responsible for enforcing Section 50 4. Examples (Guyer & Uzeta, 2009) of t he types of auxiliary aids and services that may be utilized to accommodate postsecondary studen ts with disabilities include : Recorded texts Note takers Interpreters Readers Videotext displays Screen magnification Talking calculators Electronic readers Braille output devices Open and closed cap tioning Voice synthesizers Calculators/keyboards with enlarged buttons Assistive listening devices and systems While postsecondary institutions need not provide the best auxiliary aid available, the aid must be effective in meeting the needs of a stude nt with a disability ( Guyer & Uzeta, 2009 ). Section 504 o f the Rehabilitation Act (1973 ) specifically states that postsecondary institutions attendants, persona l care assistance, and/or devices for pers onal use or study ( Guyer & Uzeta 2009 ). For students with intellectual disabilities, these guidelines may leave numerous needs unaddressed. For example, students with ID who take courses for credit are not eligi ble for modifications to course content or course expectations (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2013). According to Section 504, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable sions, testing, and curriculum, in order to afford meaningful and equal opportunity to students with disabilities. The requested accommodations are not intended to result in lower academic

PAGE 21

21 standards or significant modification s that alter the fundamental nature, integrity, and/or functionality of each program ( Guyer & Uzeta 2009 ). The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 The Americ ans with Disabilities Act ( 1 990 ) was modeled after both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehab ilitation Act; therefore, many requirements of the ADA mirror those of Section 504 ( Guyer & Uzeta 2009 (K atsi yannis, et a l. 2009 ; Guyer & Uzeta 2009 ). Title II requires that public entities deliver their services in the most integrated settings appropriate ( Guyer & Uzeta 2009 ). A term used in ), are specifically defined in Title III as Modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when the modifications are necessary to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the public accommodation can de monstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. While institutes of higher education are not required to provide a free and approp riate education they are expected to provide approp riate academic accommodations (Katsi yannis, et al. 2009 disability from a qualified diagnostician. Most institutions of higher educa tion have established a disability support services office that provides assistance to students with disabi lities (Katsi yannis et al. 2009 ) Professionals in disability services have considerable understanding of reasonable accommodations; however, the disability support services office does not have sole responsibility for ensuring that students with disabilities receive accommodations. Unfortunately, postsecondary faculty are not always willing to provide these accommodations (Katsiyannis et al., 200 9).

PAGE 22

22 A lack of training in policies and practices pertaining to students with disabilities has been identified as one reason faculty are reluctant to provide accommodations (Katsiyannis et al 2009). Recent studies also indicate that higher education fa culty are unaware of legislative mandates regarding stude nts with disabilities (Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2003) Educating faculty about the needs of students with disabilities and the rationale for providing reasonable accommodations can encourage the prov ision of reasonable accommo dations Topical training on instructional strategies that facilitate equal access, such as universal design, can facilitate faculty effectiveness in serving students with disabi lities (Katsi yannis, et al. 2009 ). Universal de sign for learning (Rose & Meyer 2002 ), universal design for instruction (Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2003), or universal instructional design (Ouellett, 2004) includes instructional strategies that benefit a broad range of learners, including students with in telle ctual disabilities. When us ing universal design concepts, faculty are proactively designing an instructional environment that includes varied instructional methods, varied assessment methods, and flexibility in the classroom envir onment (Katsi yannis et al. 2009 ). The ADA ensures equal educational opportunity for persons with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAA, 2008) broadens the scope of coverage under both the ADA (1990 ) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (197 3) Under the ADAA major life activities now include learning, reading, thinking, communicating, and concentrating, among o ther activities. The ADAA supports less restrictive postsecondary disability documentation requirements. Previously, disability d ocumentation consisted primarily of clinical/diagnostic evaluations and/or psychoeducational testing. New guidance from the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) suggests that the primary form of documentation should be student self repor t, supported by observations and interactions, with

PAGE 23

23 external information used only as secondary sources of documentation (AHEAD, 2012; Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2013). Program Standards from the A ssociation on H igher E ducation And Disability (AHEAD) Passed in 1999, the program standards of the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) reflect the general consensus among professional disability support services personnel about the nature of the minimum essential service components of a postsecondary Disability Services Office. The AHEAD Program Standards and Performance Indica tors (AHEAD Standards) were developed with the help, assistance, and collective contributions of more than 1000 professional disability support service providers, including ind ividuals who were not members of the Assoc iation (Shaw & Dukes, 2005 ; AHEAD, 2012 ). Section Four of the AHEAD Standards (1999) s that the nts appropriate academic accomm S ection Four state s that the D isability accommodations, taking into consideration the environment, task, and the u ni que needs of the ) P ersonnel of the DSO are expected to collaborate with facul ty on m odifications and accommodations to ensure program accessibility without compromising um, or program of stu dy (AHEAD, 2012 p 5 ) The Assistive Technology Act of 2004 The Ass istive Technology Act (Tech Act) of 2004 was designed to improve access to technology for people with disabilities ( Guyer & Uzeta 2009 ). Institutions of higher education are considered provide the auxiliary aids and services students with disabilities need to locate and use library resources and materials. Institutions must provide books in alternative forma ts, such as Braille,

PAGE 24

24 large text, audio recording, and other electronic formats. Institutional websites are expected to be accessible to users who require screen readers or captioning, among other accessibility tools. Speech recognition and dictation syst ems may also be provided. The underlying concept to be us ed by institution s and their libraries is Guyer & Uzeta 2009 ). Students with intellec tual disabilities can benefit from principles and practices that exemplify universal design but their success in higher education also require s individualized attention to their specific learning styles and needs. Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008 The Higher Education Opportunity Act (P.L. 110 315) of 2008 contained a number of im portant provisions that should improve access to postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities (Smith Lee, 2010). For the first time, students with ID, including students who lack a regular diploma or General Educational Development (GED) equivalent, are able to qualify for federal financial aid. To be eligible for Pell grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, and the Federal Work Study program, students with ID must be enrolled in an approved Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary (CTP) program and maintain satisfactory progress according to standards established by the postsecondary education institution (Smith Lee, 2010). Current Realities in Postsecondary Education for Students with Intellectual Disabilities Only a small percentage (~11%) of high school students with intellectual disabilities (ID) currently go on to attend a two year or four year college (Grigal, Hart, & Migliore, 2011). The percentage of students enrolling in postsecondary education is lower for students with ID than for any other disability category (Newman et al., 2011). Few students with ID have postsecondary education listed on their individual ized education programs (IEPs), as a post

PAGE 25

25 school outcome (Grigal, Hart, & Migliore, 2011 ; Katsiyann is, Zhang, Woodruff, & Dixon, 2005). based transition services? Most high school students with intellectual disabilities will not be considered college ready as they reach the ages at which their peers without disabilities traditionally enter postsecondary education (Grigal, Hart, & Lewis, 2012). One quarter of students receiving postsecondary education services, in the programs that have self identified to the Think College na tional coordinating center on transition postsecondary programs for students with ID, are identified as dually enrolled students who continue to have IDEA eli gibility ( Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2013). The preamble to the Individuals with Disabilities Act s ays that nothing in the law would prohibit the use of IDEA funds to support students with disabilities in a postsecondary setting. However there is no clear support for funds to be used in this manner. School systems may struggle to translate meaningful post secondary transition experiences into their traditional secondary IEP frameworks (Grigal, Hart, & Lewis, 2012). Low numbers of students with ID planning for and attending college may be tied, at least in part, to pervasive low expectations f or persons wi th ID (Grigal, Hart, & Weir 2011; Migliore & Domin, 2011; Papay, 2011). Many parents may want postsecondary education for their children with ID, yet few may believe or expect that their children will attain that goal (Martinez et al., 2012). The histor ically limited number of postsecondary education options for students with ID has certainly contributed to low enrollment. Additionally, parents and professionals may not be aware of increased postsecondary options available to students with ID (Griffin, McMillan, & Hodapp, 2010; Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2011). Mock and Love (2012) found that

PAGE 26

26 parents of students with ID wanted more information on postsecondary education much earlier in ID have shown that, while parents may desire postsecondary education for their students with ID, transition professionals show a significant lack of knowledge regarding available postsecondary education options (Griffin et al., 2010; Martinez et al., 2012 ). Many of the programs and services for students with ID, in colleges and universities, were created without guidance from legislature or literature (Grigal, Hart, & Lewis, 2012). Before HEOA (2008), no guidelines regulated the policies or practices of t hese programs. Most of the literature on postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities consists of descriptive, single subject, qualitative, and case studies. Since there is still little consistent practice, programs are difficult t o compare in a meaningful way. Little has emerged in the way of evidence based, or even promising, practices. Emerging programs can benefit from their collective experience as they cultivate learning experiences for students with intellectual disabilitie s (Grigal, Hart, & Lewis, 2012). Standards and guidelines will guide new programs and expand the use of effective policies and practices. Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities In October 2010, the US Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education awarded 27 model demonstration grants to two and four year postsecondary education institutions in 23 states. These funds would enable IHEs to create or expand high quality, inclusive transition postseconda ry programs for students with intellectual disabilities (TPSIDs) The TPSIDs promote the successful transition of students with ID into higher education (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2013). The competition for model demonstration TPSIDs was established by HEOA 2008 (P.L. 110 315).

PAGE 27

27 The 27 TPSID grantees, located in 23 states, are committed to creating and expanding programs that focus on academics and instruction, social activities, employment experiences and internships, and ind ependent living. Grantees provide individualized supports for students with ID and opportunities for students with ID to experience college alongside their peers without disabilities. Evaluating what works and what does not work toward these goals is a key component of each TPSID grant ( Think College, n.d., National Coordinating Center ). The Institute for Community Inclusion at the University of Massachusetts Boston received a separate grant to fund a national coordinating center. The Think College national coordinating center has devel oped and disseminated a set of standards, quality indicators, and benchmarks These standards are designed to assist programs working to transition students with ID, successfully into postsecondary education (Think College 2012 ). Think College Think Colle ge is a project of the Institute for Community Inclusion at the University of Massachusetts Boston that includes several initiatives: the Consortium for Postsecondary Education for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities, the Center for Postsecondary E ducation for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities, the College Career Connection, and the National Coordinating Ce nter for transition postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities (TPSIDs, Appendix A ). Administrators of the Thin k College n ational coordinating center have proposed the following major goals (Think College, n.d. CFDA#: 84.407B: Abstract ) : 1. Conduct leadership and coordination activities to promote collaboration efforts among TPSIDs and others working to support studen ts with ID in postsecondary education. 2. Provide dissemination and training and technical assistance for TPSIDs. The expanded Think College website will serve as an e clearinghouse on postsecondary education for students with ID.

PAGE 28

28 3. Create and implement three e valuation mechanisms: a) Needs Assessment and Implementation Scale, which will categorize TPSIDs according to implementation status, identify adherence to TPSID requirements, and identify needed technical assistance; b) Standards and Quality Indicators Tool comprised of eight standards, eighteen quality indicators, and seventy seven benchmarks aligned with HEOA 2008; and c) Evaluation Protocol to synthesize data collected by TPSIDs, assess implementation fidelity, ensure data reliability, and foster inf ormation dissemination. Think College Standards Although colleges and universities have been offering certain postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities for decades (Neubert et al. 2001), no established guidelines or empirically validated documents were available to guide the field toward standards or quality (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2011). To improve postsecondary education opportunities for students with ID, Think College developed a standards based conceptual framework. The Th ink College Standards (TC Standards) Quality Indicators, and Benchmarks provide a foundation for planning, implementing, and assessing practices, as well as designing and conducting research (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2011 ; Think College, 2012 Think College S tandards for Inclusive Postsecondary Education ). Little of the existing research or practice in postsecondary education for students with ID had benefitted from the guidance included in HEOA 2008 (P.L. 110 315). Experts with at least two years of direct experience in postsecondary education for students with ID were recruited to help validate the TC Standards (2012) through a Delphi process, a series of structured & Weir, 2011). Think College administrators hoped to identify and validate practices that could be used by programs and institutions to create, expand, and enhance high quality, inclusive

PAGE 29

29 postsecondary education for students with ID. The goal of the Th ink College Standards was to support the creation and study of authentic, inclusive postsecondary education for students with ID (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2011). The TC Standards (2012) for inclusive postsecondary education delineate four standards that are c onsidered cornerstones of quality practice: Inclusive Academic Access, Career Development, Campus Membership, and Self Determination (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2011 ; Think College, 2012 ). Another four standards Integration with College Systems and Practices, Coordination and Collaboration, Sustainability, and Ongoing Evaluation represent the interdependent elements of infrastructure required to enable and sustain the four cornerstones of quality practice and the achievement of quality outcomes. This standards based framework supports the tenets of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, reflects the institutional and instructional practices of Universal Design for Learning ( Think College, 2012. Think College Standards for Inclusive Postsecondary Educatio n ), and acknowledges the i ndividualized services required by students wit h ID (Hart, Grigal, & Weir, 2010 ). Inclusive Academic Access The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (P.L. 110 315) clearly indicated that a comprehensive transition postseconda ry program must support inclusive academic access for students with ID (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012). However, man y programs surveyed in 2009 courses. Fewer indicated that all students w ith ID were accessing college courses (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012 p. 226 ). In 2008, fewer than 25% of students with ID enrolled in surveyed postsecondary education programs were reported to be taking college classes (Papay & Bambara, 2011). Three quarter s of survey respondents also reported that students with ID participated only in group instruction and activities with other students with ID. The percentage of students with ID who

PAGE 30

30 were participating in college classes was higher in individualized progra ms than in other postsecondary programs for students with ID. However, little difference in participation in college c lasses was perceived between 2 year and 4 year colleges (Papay & Bambara, 2011). Descriptions of the postsecondary education experiences of students with ID indicate that such programs have produced a range of positive outcomes (Thoma, Lakin, Carlson, Domzal, Austin, & Boyd, 2011). Students have reported learning in academic, social, and functional skills domains. After interacting with s tudents with ID, others report that their presence has not detracted from the academic or social experience of the college setting, as som e may have feared (Hafner, 2008; Thoma et al., 2011). Recent literature on postsecondary education for students with usive; students have attended and how faculty made changes to existing courses to enhance access to instruction, materials, and assessment for students with and without disabilities ( Blumberg et al., 2008; Carroll et al., 2008; Hafner, 2008; Thoma et al., 2011). Access to existing college courses by student s with ID continues to depend on the support of program developers and their level of expectations for students in their programs (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012). As the national coordinating center expands resources and tools available to program developers, and programs increase their implementation of important standards, quality indicators and benchmarks supporting inclusive posts econdary education, opportunities for students with intellectual disabilities should continue to expand and improve. Statement of the Problem Previous research on postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities has not often benefitted from the guidance of the Higher Education Opportunity (HEOA) Act of 2008 (PL 110 315. As the national coordinating center begins to disseminate the standards, tools, and resources that must guide the future development of this field, practitioners must

PAGE 31

31 a ttend to the guidance provided and align their practices accordingly. R esearch on inclusive academic access must address the new guidelines and continue to address the participation of students with ID in classes, the accommodations and modifications that are provided, the purposes that are served by such academic access, and the collaborations that support academic access successfully (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2011; Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012; Papay & Bambara, 2011; Thoma et al., 2011). In order to support the efforts of the national coordinating center and the transition postsecondary programs, as well as the students with intellectual disabilities and families who depend upon such programs for inclusive academic access, new research must be designed to exp lore the current state of practice and progress towards the new legal mandates and standards (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2011; Grigal, Hart, & Weir; Thoma et al., 2011). The present study address ed the new standards, quality indicators, and benchmarks for inc lusive academic access; assess ed the current state of practice in these areas; describe d the benchmarks best implemented and illustrated by comprehensive t ransit ion and postsecondary (CTP) programs, transition and postsecondary programs for students with i ntellectual d isabilities (TPSIDs), and other postsecondary programs serving students with ID on college campuses. A survey of identified postsecondary programs, de veloped from Think College Standard 1 : Inclusive Academic Access, related Quality Indicators and Benchmarks, and a T hink C ollege implementation scale (Appendix B) was used to evaluate the practices and progress programs have demonstrated already. By illuminating the current states of prac tice and progress, the current study should lay a foundat ion for future research and program development that promotes inclusi ve academic access.

PAGE 32

32 Background of the Study Definitions from the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA 2008) The Higher Ed ucation Opportunity Act (HEOA) was enacted on August 14, 2008 (P .L. 110 315) and reauthorizes the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 ( P.L. 89 329) as amended (HEA). The provisions of th e HEOA authorize i nclusive model comprehensive transition and postsecondary programs, as well as a national coordinating center. Th e HEOA also defines a comprehensive transition and p ostsecondary (CTP) p rogram for s tudents with intellectual d isabilities. Comprehensive transition and p ostsecondary (CTP) program According t o HEOA 2008 (P.L. 110 315) a comprehensive transition and post secondary (CTP) program can be approved for participation in three federal student aid programs if it is a degree, certificate, or non degree program that is offered by a college or career school and approved by t he U.S. Department of Education. The CTP p rogram must be designed to support students with intellectual disabilities who want to continue academic, career, and independent living instruction to prepare for g ainful employment. An approved CTP program must offer academic advising and include a stru ctured curriculum. Finally, approved CTP programs must require students with intellectual disabilities to participate, for at least half of the program, in the following inclusive college experiences (Florida Consortium on Postsecondary Education and Inte llectual Disabilities, n.d.) : regular enrollment in credit bearing courses with nondisabled students, auditing or participating (with nondisabled students) in courses for which the student does not receive regular academic credit, enrollment in noncredit b earing, nondegree courses with nondisabled students, or internships or work based training with nondisabled individuals (US Department of Education. Students with Intellectual Disabilities).

PAGE 33

33 Transition and p osts econdary program for students with intellec tual d isabilitie s Accor ding to HEOA 2008 (P.L. 110 315) t ransition and p ostsecondary programs for s tudents with i ntellectual d isabilitie s (TPSIDs) will establish model comprehensive transition and postsecondary programs that serve students with intellectu al disabilities. These model TPSIDs must provide individual supports and services for the academic and social inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities in academic courses, extracurricular activities, and other aspects of the institution of hig her education' s regular postsecondary program. Model TPSIDs must demonstrate a focus on academic enrichment; socialization; independent living skills, including self advocacy skills; and integrated work experiences and career skills that lead to gainful e mployment. According to HEOA 2008 guidelines (P .L. 110 315 ), model TPSIDs should integrate person centered planning in the development of the course of study for each student with an intellectual disability par ticipating in the model program. The 27 TPSID s funded as model demonstr ation projects are required to participate with the national coo rdinating center in the evaluation of the model program. Student with an intellectual d isability According to the HEOA of 2008 (P.L. 110 315) a student with an inte llectual disability (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.) is a student in intellectual and cognitive functioning, as well as adaptive behavior expressed in conceptual social, and practical adaptive skills; or with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who has a significant cognitive impairment with significant limitation in cognitive functioning, and limitations in adaptive behavior; and who is currently, or was formerly, eligible for a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with D isabilities Education A ct of 2004

PAGE 34

34 Definitions from Literature on Postsecondary Education for Students with Intellectual Disabilities Intellectual disabilities Grigal, Har t and Weir (2013) sai d the HEOA 2008 definition may become a challenge for students who have various other disability labels, such as individuals on the autism spectrum. Thoma et al. (2011) noted in their review of literature on postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities, that broader group of individuals who have more pervasive support needs including individuals with mental retardation, autism, traumatic brain injury, and multiple disabilities (p. 178) Postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities Grigal, Hart, and Weir (2013) noted that for some practitioners, any experience that occurs on a college campus may be called postsecondary education. Such a broad definition would include college experiences that include little or no course access or instruction. Grigal, or university (p. 53). Program for students with intellectual disabilities Under the HEOA of 2008 (P.L. 110 315), a program for students with intellectual disabilities (ID) is a formal arrangement of services and supports that create access to postsecondar y education. The term program does not imply any model, setting, or approach. Nor does it imply any value, philosophy, or ideology (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2013 p. 53 ). Research Questions Research question 1 Which of the practices promoted by the Thi nk College Benchmarks appear to be most prevalent a cross the programs identified to the Think College database? Research question 2 Do any program characteristics predict the implementation of more or fewer benchmarks?

PAGE 35

35 Research question 3 Which specific program characteristics predict the implementation of particular Benchmarks? Methods and Procedures Research Design The present study used survey methodology to solicit levels of implementation from representatives of programs ident ified in the Think Colle ge database The self reported levels reflect ed implementation of the first T hink C ollege standard, Inclusive Academ ic Access, as well as the accompanying quality indicators and b enchmarks. Data Collection and Analysis A web based survey instrument, modi fied minimally from the TC Standards with Implement ation Scale instrument (Think College, 2012) was used to collect responses from program representat ives. An SPSS database was used to record data as it wa s received. The SPSS database was used to constr uct contingency tables and perform calculations necessary to determine levels of implementation and relationships among variables. Limitations The population of interest for this study consists of representatives of the transition postsecondary programs fo r students with intellectual disabilities that are located on higher education campuses and self identified to the Thin k College database. Because this population was small at the time of survey dissemination the entire population of 197 programs was sur veyed. Only a portion of the program representat ives who received the survey respond ed and such self selection undermines the extent to which the final sample of respondents mirror s the composition of the entire population (Dillman et al. 2009). The po ssibility of nonresponse error undermines the generalizability of results to the entire population of representatives of postsecondary programs servi ng students with ID. Since Think College administrators have already reported that their outreach has not resulted in coverage of the entire population of

PAGE 36

36 postsecondary programs for students with ID (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012), some coverage error must be assumed (Dillman et al. respondents differ from those responding to the surv ey in some systematic way that is important to the study (i.e., if less experienced representatives respond ed in much higher numbers than more experienced representatives of the postsecondary education programs), the gene ralizability of results is signific antly reduced. Also, closed ended questions with unordered categories can become unbalanced, thus biasing responses (Dillman et al. 2009). The unordered program characteristics of the sur vey were made as explicit as possible. Categories were used that i mplied as little judgment as possible, while still soliciting necessary information. Unfortunately, the Think College levels of implementation do suggest more and less desirable responses. Misinterpretation of categories may have occur red socially desi rable choices may have be en pro vided, and these responses introduce bias (Dillman et al. 2009). The anonymi ty of the internet survey mode wa s expected to diminish the occurrence of socially desirable responses, to some extent. However, possible bias an d error and must be considered when int Significance Prior to the current study, surveys and other reviews of the state of practice in postsecondary education for students with int ellectual disabilities did not reflect on the s tandards, quality indicators, and benchmarks recently developed by the national coordinating center and aligned with the mandates of HEOA 2008 (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012; Papay & Bambara, 2011; Thoma et al., 2011). Literature in this area has begun to re flect increased access to college courses and campus membership for students wit h ID. However, progress toward inclusive academic access has never before been qualified or quantifie d in the manner of the present study. A ssociations among program characte ristics an d program practices have not previously been

PAGE 37

37 expl ored or measured. The present study provides information that can assist program developers in proceeding toward valida ted standards. The findings of the current study can also assist researchers in designing further investigation of specific practices and relationships. Finally, deta ils illuminated by the present study might enable students with intellectual disabilities and their families to make more informed choices when planning for and enro lling in postsecondary education programs. Organization of the Study This research study will be presen ted in five chapters. Chapter 1 : Introduction has discussed the need for and significance of the study. Important terms have been defined; research qu estions, methods, and procedures have been previewed; and limitations hav e been acknowledged. Chapter 2 : Literature Review has explored previous literature related to postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities, focusing on recent studies and articles that have discussed the currents state of practic e in this field. In Chapter 3 : Methods and Procedures, methodology and procedures of the proposed study have been discussed in further detail. The proposed processes for developing the instrument, collecting data, and analyzing collected data have been described. Chapter 4 : Results will present the data responses as they pertain to each research question and summarize key results. Finally, Chapter 5 : Discussion and Implications will di scuss research findings pertinent to each research question, highlight additional possible interpretations, acknowledge any limitations which must be considered in interpreting the results, and discuss areas for future research.

PAGE 38

38 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERA TURE History of Transition Postsecondary Programs Transition postsecondary programs have been serving young adults with disabilities, including intellectual disabilities (ID), on college campuses for decades. When they began opening their doors to student s with ID, colleges had little guidance. Sometimes a school district with an existing program for 18 to 21 year old students with ID, which seemed well suited to a campus location, approached a college. Some campus programs were initiated by researchers with grant fu nding and a model that was implemented and studied. At other times, an individual student with ID, or family, approached an institute of higher education and asked for assistance in developing a program to meet specific needs. Despite exampl es that have appeared on campuses and in the literature for decades, Hart, & Weir, 2013, p. 53). Relatively few students with ID have previously experienced the se opportunities to access higher education, and even fewer students have experienced real academic and social participation in higher education settings. While practitioners have sometimes referred to any experiences occurring on college campuses as post secondary education, leaders in this new arena have specified that postsecondary education for students granting college or university (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2013). The present review of literature track s the development of transition postsecondary (Appendix B ) quality indicators, and benchmarks for inclusive academic access, were developed by a national coordinating center for the approved CTP programs and model TPSID programs (TC Standards,

PAGE 39

39 Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2011 ; Think College, 2012 ) Think College benchmarks are used as headers to guide the reader through this review of the literature published, to date, on key features of quality transition postsecondary programs for young adults with ID. When congress reauthorized the Higher Education Act (1965) as the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, the field of inclusive higher education for students with intellectual disabilities (ID) received both an official endorsement and a set of instructions. Congress defined Comprehensive Transition Postsecondary (CTP) programs for students with ID, delineating a set of mandates and a set of prefe rences T he HEOA 2008 language described the requirements of Transition Program for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) model demonstration projects as well as the purposes of the national coordinating center Under HEOA 2008, students with ID who enroll in approved CTP programs have first time access to three forms of federal financial aid: the Pell Grant, the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant, and Work Study. The inclusive higher education landscape continues to include a number of postsecondary programs for students with ID created before HEOA 2008. T his landscape now includes 27 TPSID mo del demonstration projects ( Appendix A ) As of March 1, 2013, inclusive higher education sites include 16 CTP programs with approval to participa te in federal financial aid programs These approved CTP programs are: California State University Fresno Taft College Southeastern University Elmhurst College Heartland Community College The College of New Jersey New York Institute of Technology W estern Carolina University Appalachian State Kent State University

PAGE 40

40 College of Charleston Vanderbilt University Clemson University University of South Carolina Coastal Carolina University George Mason University In 2012 the Think College Standards (TC based conceptual eight standards represent the components of higher education for students with ID that experts perceived as essential t o quality practi ce. Four standards, inclusive academic access, career d evelop ment, campus membership, and self d etermination were called cornerstones of practice (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2011, p. 6). The additional infrastructure standards were considered necessary to enable the cornerstones of practice to be implemented and sustained at a level that produces quality outcomes. This standards based conceptual framework help s professionals design and implement future practice and research. These eight stand ards also provide a framework that helps us understand previously published literature on higher education that includes students with ID (Appendix B) Previous Reviews of L iterature The literature on inclusive higher education for students with ID has bee n reviewed, comprehensively, in three published documents. Neubert and colleagues (2001) reviewed position papers and program descriptions published from 1 972 through 2000. They identified a ardation and other significant and 4 year college campuses (Neubert, Moon, Grigal, & Redd, 2001, p. 155). Thoma et al. (2011) reviewed the literature on postsecondary education for students with ID, from 2001 to 2010, in order to ident ify any changes in the types of programs offered and look for evidence of improved outcomes based on participation in h igher education. They noted

PAGE 41

41 that higher education experiences for students with ID remained relatively rare. Programs and experiences d escribed in the literature were highly variable in terms of academic integration, academic supports, and social supports. Thoma et al. (2011) recommended that future research should better describe programs, participants, g oals, and outcomes. They also s uggested comparing models, implementation, and outcomes in a systematic way. As the Institute on Community Integration began work on taxonomy for the field, McEathron and Beuhring (2011) of the University of Minnesota reexamined the literature reviewed by Neubert et al. (2001) and Thoma et al. (2011) McEathron and Beuhring advocated for academic, vocational, social, and independent living domains that should be addressed by higher education programs for students with ID. They suggested c lustering colleg e programs according to these dom ains and the specific activities that define them By clustering programs, we might reveal contextual factors and program elements that seem important to specific outcomes. Using a common frame of reference for summarizin g program characteristics could also promote more informed decisions about which types of programs might provide the best Purpose of this Review The current review of literatur e uses the Think College Standards as a frame of reference for comparing characteristics of higher education programs for students with ID, specific activities, and con textual factors. The standards help to reveal the progress toward inclusive academic a c cess descr ibed in previous literature. This re view identifies models and practices that have been described, in an effort to assist professionals who are pursuing new innovations that will improve the landscape of inclusive higher education for students w ith ID.

PAGE 42

42 Methodology For this review, an electronic search was conducted, in September 2012, using the major relevant research databases, including Education Resources Information Center (ERIC, United omplete, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), EBSCO Academic Search Premier, SAGE 2011 Complete, and the Think College online literature database (Think College, n.d., Think College Literature Database ). This search included the following keywords: inclusive postsecondary education, postsecondary education, higher education, college, dual enrollment, intellectual disabilities, developmental disabilities, significant disabilities, and mental retardation. A secondary search was con ducted for articles included in the reference lists of articles selected for review. The initial search yielded over 2,000 articles published in peer reviewed journals. Only those articles published in peer reviewe d journals were included in this review. Titles and abstracts were used to identify transition postsecondary education programs that included students with ID and were conducted in the United States. Finally, 67 potential articles were read and twenty were selected for inclusion in this review based on their relevance to Think College Standard 1: Inclusive Academic Access. When a June 2013 search re vealed additional publications recent literature was integrated into t he review. Other articles that did not report policies or practices relevan t to the Think College Stan dards were not included in this review. The headings that follow reflect the quality indicators and benchmarks that accompany Think College Standard 1: Inclusive Academic Access. Programs describ ed below include practices that f ulfill one or more benchmarks first and second qualit y indicators of the inclusive academic access standard (TC Standards, 2012 ). The first Think College standard, Inclusive Academic Access, and accompanying quality in dicators and benchmarks (Appendix B ), reflect

PAGE 43

43 the legal mandates of HEOA 2008. Some relevant benchmarks which are not reflected in the literature on these transition postsecondary programs are also discussed. Think College Standard 1: Inclusive Academic Access Quality Indicator 1 .1 : Access t o a Wide Array of Course Types Benchmark 1.1D: Existing courses rather than separate courses for only students with disabilities The HEOA (2008) prescribes individualized supports for students with ID seeking inclusive higher education. These mandates s tand in contrast to the practices of segregated postsecondary pr ogram s that have historically been available to students with ID. One benefit of the individual support model is that students with ID are not limited to the courses available in a separate pr ogram (Neubert, Moon, & Grigal, 2002). Access to existing courses has been documented in postsecondary education programs for students with ID for some time. However, these programs have not traditionally included the type of inclusive academic access pre scribed by the HEOA (2008) and promoted by the Think College Standards for Inclusive Higher Education ( 2012 ). Access to existing courses, alone, does not satisfy other requirements (HEOA, 2008) and guidelines for Comprehensive Transition Postsecondary (CT P) programs, such as courses aligned with career plans; related to personal, academic, and career goals; or determined through person cente red planning (TC Standards, 2012 ). More than a decade ago, ten transition programs housed on college campuses in Mary land had college staff providing some type of instruction to students with signif icant disabilities (Grigal et al. 2001). In four of these programs, a college instruc tor taught a class only for students with significant disabilities. Six other programs, h owever, had at least on student enrolled in a regular course or continuing education course. These courses included piano,

PAGE 44

44 ceramics, stage craft, tai chi, physical education, math review, weight training, swimming, and aerobics. year old Maryland student with significant disabilities included numerous classes with a special educator; work with a peer tutor; lunches with other special education students, the peer tutor, fraternity bro thers, and/or a Best Buddy; travel training; part time work at PetSmart; and two college classes: Ceramics and Weight Training (Gri gal, Neubert, & Moon, 2002, p. 69). The case study of a young woman with Down syndrome in her last year of high school (Casa le Giannola & Kamens, 2006), who attended a university course for credit, touches on several TC Benchmarks (2011). Jacqueline had access to an existing course, rather than a separate course for students with ID (Benchmark 1.1D, 2011). Her course access w as not limited to a pre determined list (1.1E); however, she did not choose the course. Instead, the course was include Jacqueline in her class. We have no idea whether this credit course attended by students without disabilities was aligned with previously attended a college course as part of her high school transition progra m, so this was not first time access to higher education. Taking another college course was a transition experience desired by her mother. We have no postsecondary plans except that she did not yet have an employment placement ( Casale Giannola & Kamens, 2006). Currently, leaders in the field of postsecondary education for students with ID describe classes that are part of a specially designed curriculum for

PAGE 45

45 students with ID wanted better access to inclusive co llege classes. Most programs have support ed students with ID to participate in one or two existing college courses per semester, along with specially designed classes (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012). The University Participant (UP) certificate program at Western Carolina University (WCU Cullowhee, N orth C aro lina ) includes access to existing WCU courses and mandates 1,800 hours of learning activities (450 hours per semester) over a four semester period (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). The Transition to Independent Living ( TIL ) program is a structured prog ram of specialized classes for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities at Taft College (Taft, California) The 38 classes of the TIL curriculum, taken over two y ears, include subjects suc h as personal safety, personal f inance, meal p rep a ration, and personal a dvocacy. Students with ID in the TIL program can take regular Taft College courses, but only those that meet outside the hours of the TIL curriculum. Students with ID select classes from the college catalog, talk to their professors about their accommodation needs, and typically take classes as pass/fail, rather than choosing to be graded (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). The D iversity, Responsibility, Inclusion, Vision, and Experiential (D RIVE ) learning program of Keuka College K euka Park, New York) includes a minimum of eight college courses. Students with ID who co mplete the DRIVE program earn an (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013, p. 14) The DRIV E program is currently going through a rigorous goal setting process, using Think College Standards and Quality Indicators, in order to focus on an inclusive approach for all their key activities. Core courses, designed around the needs of students with I D, are

PAGE 46

46 must take these core courses, they are also attended by students without disabilities. Two one credit courses, each co taught by a Keuka College faculty memb er and a DRIVE special education teacher, are offered through the college course catalog to the entire student body (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). Students with ID, who attend Northern Kentucky University (NKU Highland Heights, Kentucky ) through th e Supported Higher Education Project (SHEP), register for three to six credit hours each semester in 100 and 200 level courses. Inclusive course access is a primary objective of the SHEP program, so NKU offers no specialized coursework for students with ID. Students may take a maximum of 30 credit hours over three academic calendar years. Students have taken, for cr edit or audit, courses such as introduction to information systems, introductory a rt, beginning web design, foundations of college writing, introduction to computers, experiential education, and introduction to graphic d esign. All course prerequisites must be met, unless permission of the instructor is obtained (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). Academics were added to Highline Community C ( HCC, Des Moines, Washington) ACHIEVE Program in 2001, primarily through specialized classes that focused on basic workplace technology, employment readiness, workplace communication skills, learning styles, and self advocacy. These courses were offered through the HCC Continuing Education Department, were open to the community, and were listed in the Continuing Education schedule of courses. As of March 2012, ACHIEVE was supporting students to participate in typical college courses offered by ac ademic departments. The skills previously taught in separate classes are now more likely to be taught in natural settings with students without disabilities.

PAGE 47

47 Ben chmark 1.1A Enrollment in non credit courses Neubert, Moon, and Grigal (2004) surveyed pub lic school teachers who were serving students with significant disabilities, ages 18 21, in postsecondary settings. Results indicated that while students with significant disabilities were successfully engaged in employment training, access to college cour ses was limited. Survey respons es indicated that a most teachers (n = 11) were serving students on college campuses. However, 100 of 163 students were not participating in any college courses (Neubert, Moon, & Grigal, 2004). Of 63 students participating in college courses, 59 students with significant disabilit ies were taking or auditing non credit courses. Most of these non credit courses were in the health and fitness area. Health and fitness courses included adventure sports, aerobics, aqua fitness, bas ketball, dance, health education, karate, self defense, swimming, water aerobics, weight training, wellness, and yoga Art courses included 3 D design, ceramics, crafts, drawing, and jewelry. Ot her non credit courses included adult or remedial basic math, computer literacy, introduction to computers, and reading (Neubert, Moon, & Grigal, 2004). While these courses may have appealed to students personal goals, most were not related to any academic or career goals (Be nchmark 1.1F, TC Standards, 2012 ). The Career and Community Studies (CCS) program at The College of New Jersey (Ewing, New Jersey) received a demonstration grant as a model Transition Program for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) and received approval as a Comprehensive Transitio n Postsecondary program (HEOA, 2008). This certificate program includes an inclusive noncredit course called Great Conversations. The course introduces students with ID to numerous college subjects and involves them in scholarly interactions with their p eers without disabil ities. Each of six or seven 2 week content modules deals with a different academic content area. Students without disabiliti es can elect to attend this non credit course for only one module or stay as long as the entire semester, while students with ID attend the entire semester. A typical lesson

PAGE 48

48 includes all six CCS students with ID and twelve to fifteen studen ts without disabilities. Mixed ability groups are organized at the start and re convene frequently throughout a lesson. Great Conversations creatively address Benchmark 1.1A and a variety of other needs for students with and without ID (Blumberg, Carroll, & Petroff, 2008). Undoubtedly, non credit courses are sometimes selected by students with ID because they appear easy. Howev er, students with ID may also choose credit courses (e.g., a one credit web surfing course) fo r the exact same reason ( Zafft, Hart, & Zimbrich, 2004). These courses usually have few requirements and are often selected by program staff because they are con venient. success in later classes they audit or take for credit. And creative development of such classes nterest in and b enefit from non credit courses. Benchmark 1.1B: Auditing or participating in college courses One transition program teacher developed creative partnerships that allowed her students to experience inclusive higher education opportunities (Grigal, Neubert, & Moon, 2001). This program teacher regularly served as a guest speaker in disability related classes on campus (e.g., kinesiology, occupational therapy, and special education ). In exchange for her presentations, professors collaborated with her to creat e assignments in their classes that involved transition program students with ID. Creative use of audited coursework can also prove advantageous for students with ID. Students may need to audit a course with unfamiliar content, rather than take the class for credit. After becoming familiar with the course content, students with ID may then decide to enroll in the same course for credit (Hart, Grigal, & Weir, 2010). For example, Jenny and her college advisor were able to design a major that highlighted h er strengths and interests (Weir, 2004). For

PAGE 49

49 those required classes that seemed particularly difficult, Jenny audited the class first, and then took the course for credit. This approach allowed her more time to learn the essential material. Megan was ab le to audit two academic Communicatio n Arts classes at a private 4 year university (Hammill, 2003). Although the courses were not directly related to a career path, they Allowing students with ID to audit college courses attended by students without disabilities fulfills Be nchmark 1.1B (TC Standards, 2012 ). Transition postsecondary programs for students with ID have often included audited coursework. Sometimes, student s with ID audit academic, credit courses. In two New York programs serving students with significant disabilities, including augmentative and alternative communication device users, students audited academic coursework across disciplines with typical peers (Causton Theoharris et al., 2009). This particular example illuminates certain challenges related to using audited academic coursework to provide inclusive academic access. Many courses available to students were lower level courses that had no prerequi sites. Also, faculty permission was required before a student could audit a particular class. So while courses may not have been limited by a pre determined list (Benchmark 1.1E, TC Standar ds, 2012 ), there were several logistical barriers to course acce ss (Causton Theoharris et al., 2009). Career and Community Studies students with ID are able to audit a range of courses while pursuing a certificate at The College of New Jersey (Carroll, Blumberg, & Petroff, 2008). These self selected, audited courses reflect their individual interests (Benchmarks 1.1B, 1. 1D, and 1.1E, TC Standards, 2012 ). Cutting Edge students with ID at Edgewood College (Madison, Wisconsin) also audit self selected courses as part of their certificate courses (Hafner, Moffatt, and Ki sa, 2011).

PAGE 50

50 When auditing a course, students with ID are encouraged to participate in class discussions and complete as much of the classwork as possible (Hafner, Moffatt, & Kisa, 2011). Some students, with and without ID may be less motivated to partici pate in courses for which they will not receive a grade or credit. Megan, for example, was upset that she would not get credit for her efforts in interpersonal communication skills and public s peaking courses (Hammill, 2003). Since she audited while othe r students were enrolled for credit, she felt excluded from an important aspect of the course. She also disliked being exclude d from grading of the work she completed. Creative solutions may be required to make audited coursework more meaningful to stude nts with ID in transition postsecondary programs. Most students in the S upported H igher E ducation P roject (SHEP) at Northern Kentucky University (NKU) audit all of their classes. Like all other students on campus, SHEP students must seek permission from program are expected to complete as many assignments as possible and participate fully in each class they audit (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). Each student in Keuka Coll recognition fr om the college, in at least one college level class per semester. As guests, students in the DRIVE program cannot audit or enroll formally in courses, and course access is limi ted to classes available after regular student registration (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). Benchmark 1.1C: Credit courses aligned with student career plans Only four of 163 students with significant disabilities, in Maryland transition programs surveyed by On Campus Outreach (Neubert, Moon, & Grigal, 2004), were reported to have taken a college course for credit. Two of these students had completed strength training, while

PAGE 51

51 the other two students with significant disabilities had taken keyboarding. While student schedules included many work experiences, much community based instruction, and man y other important components, credit classes did not seem to be a priority for these dual enrollment transition programs. Fifty two inclusive higher education programs responded to a national survey by Papay and Bambara (2011) about the classes, accommoda tions, and modifications experienced by students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in these programs. Approximately one enrollment in any cred it bearing courses could fulfill Benchmark 1.1C, as long as these courses were aligned w ). Students rated as having advanced or sufficient academic ski lls were reported to frequently take classe s for credit or audit Other students with limited academic skills were more likely to participate in courses informally (Papay & Bambara, 2011). Students were reported to be participating in classes that varied greatly, from non academic classes to pre college and col lege level academic classes. Vocational classes in preparation for a specific career were also reported for student s with ID D The majority of classes taken for credit fell into the categories of vocational and remedial classes. A number of examples of academic classe s reported for students with ID D were education classes. This finding led researchers to speculate that professors of education who support the goal of age appropriate inclusion might invite young adults who are less academically able into their classes (Papay & Bambara, 2011). Students in 12 of 13 Maryland programs spent a portion of their day involved in inclusive activities on campus (Grigal, Neubert, & Moon, 2004). While eight of the programs had

PAGE 52

52 students who were tak ing credit classes, many of the classes were recreational in nature. For h a ceramics class and a weight training class. The Career and Community Studies certificate program at The College of New Jersey includes a credit clas s of fered as one of more than 100 freshman seminars students without disabilities can choose during their first year of study (Blumberg, Carroll, Petroff, 2008; Carroll, Blumberg, Petroff, 20 08). The class is comprised of all six to eight first year CCS stude nts with ID and twelve to fifteen freshmen without disabilities. Students are grouped heterogeneously, across gender, major, and disability status. Human Abilities: Unplugged (Blumberg, Carroll, & Petroff, 2008; Carroll, Blumberg, & Petroff, 2008) fulfi l ls Benchmark 1.1C as a credit bearing course offered by the institution and attended by students without disabilities (TC Standards, 2012 ). The Cutting E dge program at Edgewood College offers a credit course of a similar nature (Hafner, Moffatt, & Kisa, 2 011). This course is designed to fulfill a human issues requirement for students finishing their degree. Undergraduates withou t disabilities are paired with C utting Edge students with ID to engage in community service, to research topics related to disab ilities, to complete group projects, and to ref lect on learning experiences. Engaged Citizens creatively fulfills Be nchmark 1.1C (TC Standards, 2012 ). The Psychological Development of Children and Adolescents, SPE 203, is an Introduction to Educational P sychology course that meets an undergraduate requirement for students from a variety of academic majors at The College of New Jersey (Blumberg, Carroll, & Petroff, 2008; Carroll, Blumberg, & Petroff, 2008). Before the course begins, learning objectives an d academic requirements of the class are discussed. Parti cular attention is given to

PAGE 53

53 adaptations and accommodations available to students with ID. All students are divided into groups, with students with ID evenly distributed among the groups. To prepar e students with ID for SPE 203, pre teaching sessions are conducted before contained in the lecture notes. The big ideas are reinforced by examples from the instr uctor. Then students with ID are asked to provide their own meaningful examples. Students with ID are also pre taught the objectives and processes of any group activities planne d for the class session. R esults of these pre teaching sessions, observed by Career and Community studies faculty, are that students with ID are well prepared to participate in discussions and activities (Blumberg, Carroll, & Petroff, 2008). Students with ID in SPE 203 are evaluated using the same criteria applied to other studen ts and demonstrate their learning in similar ways. Adap tations and accommodations seem sufficient to allow students with ID success in the course (Blumberg, Carroll, & Petroff, 2008). The Psychological Development of Children and Adolescents fulfills Ben chmarks 1 .1C and 1.1D (TC Standards, 2012 ). variety of general education courses (Hafner, Moffatt, & Kisa, 2011). Classes from the Schools of Business and Education, as wel l as the Arts, Communication Studies, English, Environmental Studies, History, Human Issues, Mathematics, Music, Natural Science, Philosophy, Social Science, Foreign Language, and Theatre Arts departments, have been experienced by students with ID. Cuttin g Edge students have received cred it for classes such as college writing and intro to earth s cience.

PAGE 54

54 Programs like Career and Community Studies and Cutting Edge have managed to involve a number of faculty across a variety of disciplines. By inviting facu lty to participate, first in smaller ways, and collaborating with professors to enhance instructional approaches, both programs succeed in broadening the opportunities available to students with ID. O ther programs have reported faculty discomfort with inv olving students with ID in their classes (Causton Theoharris et al., 2009). For example, one course professor struggled with a grading decision, ultimately assigned a B and suggested that a student without disabilities would have received a explain ed (Casale Giannola & Kamens, 2006, p. 350). Benchmark 1.1F: Personal, academic, and career goals determined through person centered planning In a participatory action research study (Paiewonsky, 201 1), students with ID said that access to more classes tied to their career interests, and the opportunity to talk with other students about classes before enrolling, would have improved their college experiences. In 1 4 programs serving students with significant disabilities, Moon, Grigal, and Neubert (2004) identified person centered planning as an approach used to help families determine what s (2012) also reported person centered planning as an approach central to the work of Kentucky program. Small teams usually include the student with ID, parents, a coordinator, and past and present support persons. These teams use person centered planning to help students with ID identify dreams and goals, skills on which to build, and action steps with timelines. Jillian wa s a student with Down syndrome enrolled in a non degree college program and auditing university classes. Each semester, her mother, past and present mentoring partners, the program coordinator, and Jillian met to discuss her progress toward her goals. They review ed

PAGE 55

55 her semester schedule and determ ine d what types of supports would be needed to help her fully benefit fr om colle ge classes. Timelines we r e reviewed and mentoring plans we re rev ised accordingly. Jillian looked forward to te aching young children. She started down this career path through a paid summer job at a local preschool and volunteer work at the Early Childho od Cent er of the university she attended (Kleinert et al., 2012 ). program at Western Carolina University (WCU) take college courses aligned with their career goals and det ermined through a person how much course involvement they want, including how many projects they will com plete and how many tests they will take. Career exploration is encouraged and regular planning meetings are held to develop and maintain the nature of each individualized plan (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). Courses are selected via a person centered planning process for students in the S upported H igher E ducation P rogram (SHEP) at Northern Kentucky University. Students wi th ID who complete SHEP take 24 to 30 semester hours of coursework related to their person centered plan and receive a certificate i n College to Career Studies. Person centered planning processes and Coordinator schedules interagency team meetings and conducts person centered planning activities (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). Each student attending Highline Community College (HCC Des Moines, Washington ) through the ACHIEVE Program develops an educational a nd career plan that determines the

PAGE 56

56 course of their program. Person career goals reflect their interes ts and desires. Program staff with them on a quarterly basis. In addition to one to one planning and advising, students with ID participate in a quarterly capstone course to help them connect their learning to individual goals. Regular advising meetings facilitate ongoing plan development, track progress to ward goals and guide the development of a capstone project. During the capstone course, ACHIEVE students with ID develop a portfolio that showcases strengths, accomplishments, and skills (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). Quality Indicator 1.2 : Addres s Issues that May Impact College Course Participation Benchmark 1.2 C: Access to the accommodations through the disability services office Reasonable accommodatio ns are frequently discussed in studies of transition postsecondary programs for students with ID. Some of the individualized supports provided to students during their college programs include services not typically considered accommodations under Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act, 1973) or the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990). Many supports not considered accommodations may not be provided by the Disability Services office. Currently, most students with ID attend college as nonmatriculating studen ts who will not earn a degree on completion of their postsecondary program (Grigal, Hart, & Wei r, 2013). Disability Services Offices (DSOs) sometimes question their role in working with nonmatriculated students with ID. Some students receive accommodations, such as interpreters, extended testing time, note takers, and technology, through the DSO. Best practice suggests that supports above and beyond reasonable accommodations recognized by the DSO can be provided through a program for students with ID. With appropriate accommodations and individualized

PAGE 57

57 supports, students with ID can be very succes sful in academic college classes (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2013). For example, Pam and her support team met with professors to design effective evaluation methods for her learning style. Pam uses the supports available to all college students. Aides from her community support agency stay in touch with her college and help her with her assignments. As another example, Linda pursued her dream of college with the collaborative support of family friends, and a community based tutoring service to help her with her school work. Although she visits the Disability Services office each semester to request legally required accommodations, she also creatively uses other supports (Weir, 2004). Another student with ID, Jenny (Weir, 2004) experien ced a variety support s from a variety of sources. Jenny received help with homework from her mother. She met regularly with her academic advisor and instructors at the college learning center. Jenny also worked with college provided peer tutors. At Edgewood College, Cutting Edge staff routinely assesses course structures and class environments to det ermine if students with ID need accommodations (Hafner, Moffat, & Kisa, 2011). This is an important service, since students with disabilities are required to request accommodati ons in postsecondary education settings. Edgewood O ffice reportedly provides accommodations required under ADA. At the College of New Jersey, r easonable accommodations are also provided to Career and Community Studies (CCS) students with ID. However, articles published on the program (Blumberg, Carroll, & Petroff, 2008; Carroll, Blumberg, & Petroff, 2008) do not indicate whether these accommodations are provi ded by the Disability Services O ffice (Be nchmark 1.2C, TC Standards 2012 ), by the CCS program, or by both sources.

PAGE 58

58 Zafft, Hart, and Zimbrich (2004) asked students with significant disabilities to identify accommodations used in college. Extra time to take tests was the accommodation reported most frequently, followed b y readers, note takers, tests read aloud, and work/test in a quiet place. Half of the students used five to seven accommodations in college. Students with significant disabilities rarely reported using assistive technology as an academic support (Zafft, Hart, & Zimbrich, 2004). Zafft (2006) also noted that assistive technology was not mentioned as an accommodation by many students, yet many students with poor handwriting were using computers. Hart, Grigal, and Weir (2010) observed that the widespread av ailability of personal technology provides solutions for many students with ID. Zafft (2006) inte rviewed students, parents, and disability s ervices specialists about accommodations necessary and helpful to students with ID in their college programs. Disab ility s ervices specialists carefully defined accommodations as services and supports, based on the documentation of any disability, needed to level the pl aying field in college. These disability s ervices specialists were reluctant to generalize regarding accommodations. They preferred to factor in case by case and course by is a reasonable accommodation under the law (Section 504, Reh abilitation Act, 1973; Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990). (Taft, California) T ransition to I ndependent L iving (TIL) program may take regular Taft College classes, outside the hours of their TIL curricul um. These stu dents meet with the Disability Services Office to arrange accommodations. The TIL students take a placement test with accommodations, such as extra time and a quiet testing room; however, they receive the same instructions as all other stude nts (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013).

PAGE 59

59 At Highline Community College, ACHIEVE program personnel are working to create greater access to a wider variety of college courses for students with ID. The ACHIEVE program personnel are addressing H ighline C ommun ity C ollege policies on placement tests, ability to benefit testing, and pre requisites that negatively impact course access (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). The ACHIEVE students with ID reportedly have access to any technology that helps them take pa rt in classes and activities. Benchmark 1.2F: Access to peer support Students, pare nts, and disability s ervices specialists identified personal tutoring as the accommodat ion require d by law. Colleges commonly make tutoring help available to students. One of the community coll ege provided tutoring in textbook reading and general content areas in an academic learning center (Zafft, 2006) This center was staffed by both p eer and professional tutors. The same college also relied on faculty to tutor students from their classes. A second college had a network of peer tutors for college wide tutoring. Several learning specialists were available to tutor students with disabi lities. Providing access to peer support, such as tutors, helps transition postsecondary programs fulfill Be nchmark 1.2F (TC Standards, 2012 ). At the College of New Jersey, Career and Community Studies students with ID receive mentor support when attendin g self selected courses (Blumberg, Carroll, & Petroff, 2008; support that en ables students with ID to be academically successful in college coursework (Carroll, Blumberg, & Petroff, 2008). In another example, Cutting Edge students with ID are supported by special education graduate students who serve as study s kill

PAGE 60

60 peer mentors. Undergraduate students serve as in class peer mentors. In class peer mentors volunteer to help classmates with ID meet class requirements for part or all of a semester. tual disabilities (TPSID), c ourse or project credit is provided to help increase the accountability and consistency of peer mentors (Kleinert et al., 2 012). After training to help them understand expectations, Supported Higher Education Project peer mento rs are expected to commit to a mentoring schedule. Peer mentors introduce themselves to course instr uctors prior to a new class. They provide classroom support in the least in trusive manner possible; and look for opportunities to build upon the strength s and interests of students with ID. Peer mentors help The College of nchmark 1.2F (TC Standards, 2012 ). Another example of peer support comes from an individual case study. In each of courses (Hammill, 2003), a classmate volu as part of with participation in academic work. Since Megan told one study buddy she wa s not sure when she should write things down, the study buddies showed her how to take notes in outline format and make flash cards for study. An undergraduate special education major was her study buddy rvised by a special education faculty member. elective. This study buddy supported Megan by explaining difficult assignments and academic concepts, sharing class notes, and encouraging Megan when she became frustrated or

PAGE 61

61 overwhelmed by t he class (Hammill, 2003). F unctions of these peer mentors/study buddies seem to mirror som e of the functions of educational coaches. In programs visited by Think College staff, mentors had a variety of profiles. Some mentors were just volunteering, while others were earning course credit. Some mentors were paid through work study or as graduate assistants (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). Mentors received supervision and training f rom program staff. Numerous tools, developed by programs to convey parameters and expectations to potential peer mentors, reflect the commitment these programs have to cultivating rich, meaningful experiences for both mentors and mentees. DRIVE program uses volunteers, practicum students, field work students, and graduate students to support students with ID. Peer mentors support students in academics and social activities. The DRIVE program uses a comprehensive handbook and training pro cess to help mentors support inte gration. Some mentors are pai d with work study funds, while others are volunteers. Mentors are assigned to work with specific students with ID by DRIV E program staff. Relationships between stu dents with ID and mentors ha ve reportedly be come more natural over the years of the DRIVE program (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). The Supported Higher Education Project ( SHEP ) at Northern Kentucky University (NKU) includes both academic and social mentors. The SHEP program pro vides course or project credit for mentoring to increase accountability and consi stency. Expectations for mentors and me ntees are provided. Specific job requirements depend upon the type of mentoring. The SHEP project staff provide training to all mento rs to ensure mutually respectful relationships (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013).

PAGE 62

62 t he peer navigator mentoring program, students without disabilities are paired with ACHIEVE students with ID to support their full inclusion on campus and to assist with academics. A plan to integrate the peer navigator program into the Student Affairs Off ice will be a great boon to the ACHIEVE program, as a key support service for students with ID would now be managed by Student Affairs, rather than by the program itself (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). Jones and Goble (2012) document the complex natur e of peer mentoring relationships, suggesting that mentors must receive sufficient orientation and ongoing feedback regarding their roles. They remind us that assigned peer mentors are not necessarily natural supports. Jones and Goble also caution that a ppointed mentors should neither replace natural opportunities nor prevent students with ID from reaching out to peers who are not their assigned mentors. Peer mentors, educational coaches, or ambassadors, who help students navigate courses and other campu s activities, have been identified as a support commonly utilized in many postsecondary education programs for students with ID (Jones & Goble, 2012; Blumberg & Daley, 2009; Carroll, Blumberg, & Petroff 2008; Hart, Zimbrich, & Parker, 2005; Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2013). Benchmark 1.2E: Educational coaches for student with ID is educational coach (Zafft, Hart, & Zimbrich, 2004; Zafft, 2006; Hart, Grigal, & Weir, 2010) uses that information to provide individualized support in the academic environment. Educational coaches are an example of a support that may need to be provided by an outside sourc

PAGE 63

63 and their families are often responsible for finding, supervising, and p aying educational coaches (Zafft, Hart, & Zimbrich, 2004). In their interviews, it was hard for most parents, faculty, and disability s ervices specialists (Zafft 2006). Many students in the College Career Connection (University of Massachusetts Boston) project used educatio nal coaches who tutored, took notes, and helped make materials more accessible to the student. Educational coaches helped student s with ID a ccess ca mpus resources like the library. They also hel ped with general study concerns, such as time management (Zafft, Hart, & Zimbrich, 2004; Zafft, 2006). Most students, through participation in the College Career Connection were able to access the co llege support systems independently, but some students continued to need an educational coach to be successful (Zafft, Hart, & Zimbrich, 2004). research project had worked w ith an educational coach at college, an d most students said that the coaches were helpful. Some students reported that their coaches helped them get used to reading a syllabus and organizing homework Several students, however, said that coaches gave mor e help than they need ed. Two students said coaches sometimes made them feel they were being babied. Coaches need t raini ng and supervision to provide this service effectively. Accommodation specialists employed by the TIL program at Taft College support students with ID who take colleg e level academic classes. A n accommoda tions specialist attending the same class as a TIL student with ID does n ot sit with the student. The accommodation specialist provides tutoring and other supports after class (Weir, G rigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013).

PAGE 64

64 Educational case managers have been added to the program staff of Highline Community nal case managers work with faculty and help students with ID participate in academic classes alongs ide peers without disabilities (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). By t raining, supervising, and providing access to educat ional coaches, transition postsecondary programs can fulfill Be nchmark 1.2E (TC Standards, 2012 ). Benchmark 1.2G: Universal design for learning Universal design for learning (UDL) principles can help meet the challenges of accommodating diverse students, including students with ID. Flexible instructional materials, techniques, technology, and strategies empower educators to meet va ried needs. When a course is universally designed from the outset, the educator meets the needs of a greater number of students. Costly, time consuming, after the fact changes to curric ulum can be avoided ( Hart, Grigal, & Weir, 2010 ; Rose & Meyer, 2002 ). differentiating their instruction, incorporating visual aids, and using more effective ways of engaging students with ID, faculty made courses more accessible to all students (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2013). Mock and Love (2012) interviewed faculty about including students with ID in higher education. These faculty expressed the need f or training in universal design Universal design for learning practices help make typical coursework accessible to students with ID at The College of New Jersey (Blumberg, Carroll, & Petroff, 2008; Carroll, Blumberg, & Petroff, 2008; Carroll, Petroff, & Blumberg, 2009). When educators are unfam iliar with universal design, Career and Community Studies faculty are available to h elp ensure that course design will be effective. Whenever Edgewood College students with ID attend classes, Cutting Edge program staff collaborate with professors to implement UDL strategies (H afner, Moffatt, & Kisa, 2011).

PAGE 65

65 At the College of New Jersey, t he Human Abilities: Unplugged freshman seminar includes multiple forms of presentation, including approximately a dozen contemporary films and field trips. Through evaluatio n of extensive field notes, Career and Community Studies faculty observed that the re was little to no role for peer mentors in Human Abilities: Unplugged. (Carroll, Blumberg, & Petroff, 2008). As in the freshman seminar, multiple means of rep resen tation and engagement are us ed in th e noncredit Great C onversations course (Blumberg, Carroll, & Petroff, 2008). U niversal design for learning (UDL) practices often include technology. When a professor at Edgewood College posted his PowerPoint p rese ntation onto B lackboard before his lecture, all students were able to print out lecture notes before coming to class (Hafner, Moffatt, & Kisa, 2011) Students with disabilities in the Cutting Edge program were able to read the electronic presentation usin g screen reader software. Students with ID had been trained to use multiple technologies, including text to speech and speech to text software, as well as many new applications available for iPads and similar devices. This example demonstrat es fa culty use of universal design and addresses issues that may impact college course participation access to and instruction in the use of needed technology fulfills Be nchmark 1.2D (TC Standards, 2012 ). Highline Community College reports full campus wide c ommitment to the principles of universal design for l earning (UDL). With the support of ACHIEVE staff, the college provides ongoing UDL professional development for faculty through their Center for Teaching and Learning (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013 ). Faculty training in UDL principles helps both colleges fulfill Be nchmark 1.2G (TC Standards, 2012 ).

PAGE 66

66 Previous Surveys of Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities In 2004, Gaumer, Morningstar, and Clark published the results of a survey of 10 1 community based transition (CBT) programs identified through significant program and partner outreach, as well as network or s nowball sampling The CBT programs were identified in 29 states, including 48 CBT programs at postsecondary institutions. Thes e researchers established a national database of CBT programs for the University of Kansas Transition Coalition website at http://www.transitioncoalition.org/transition/18 21/inde x.php The Ages 18 21 Program Search database (Transition Coalition, n.d., Ages 18 21 Program Search Database ) currently includes programs developed by public school systems but located in age appropriate settings for students with disabilities transitio ning from school to adult life. According to the Transition Coalition, the purposes of these 18 serve students 18 21, with a vari ety of disabilit ies in a variety of locations. Program locations include but are not limited to postsecondary education settings (Gaumer, Morningstar, & Clark, 2004; Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012). Also in 2004, the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI) at the University of Massachusetts Boston gathered data to facilitate creation of a database of postsecondary education options for students with ID. Twenty five respondents participated in a telephone survey designed to collect basic information about s ervices and supports, as well as students was the term used to describe the target population The population included students with such as autism mental illnesses, and emotional disturbances (Hart, Mele McCarthy, Pasternack, Zimbrich, & Parker, 2004, p. 56). Respondents to the Hart et al. (2004) survey included postsecondary education programs that serve d students with continuing

PAGE 67

67 eligibility for a free and appropriate public education as well as programs serving students with ID who were no longer receiving special education services under the I ndividuals with D isabilities E ducation A ct (IDEA 2004 ) The surveyed programs served s tudent with LCID only in postsecondary education settings. Programs surveyed by Hart et al. (2004) were categorized according to the three identified program models: substantially separate program; mixed model; and inclusive, individualized support model Students in the substantially separate programs did not have the option of taking college courses with peers without disabilities and had no sustained interaction with the general student body. Students in the mixed model programs had the option of bei ng supported in inclusive college courses, but also received instruction in life skills, as well as community based instruction and work experiences. Only inclusive, individual support models ensured access to college courses, based on student choices and preferences (Hart et al., 2004). One recent national survey of members of the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD, Kardos, 2011) examined the practices used to support adults with ID in regular classes at 2 year and 4 year colleges and u niversities across the country. Small numbers of adults with ID were taking regular college classes. These students were reportedly using supports available, through the Disability Services Office, to any student with a qualifying disability (Kardos, 201 1; Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2013). In 2011, Papay and Bambara published the results of a 2008 national survey that examined the general characteristics of postsecondary education programs for 18 to 21 year old students with intellectual and development al disabilities (IDD) Their study explored the extent to which students with IDD were participating in college classes. Results suggested that although many students with IDD were participating in college classes, the types of classes and

PAGE 68

68 manner of partici postsecondary education institutions where programs were located (Papay & Bambara, 2011) For the Papay and Bambara (2011) survey, the Think College national database of postsecon dary education programs for students with IDD was used to identify 81 eligible programs in the US (as of 2008) Programs eligible for the survey provided access to the campus of a postsecondary education institution and served students ages 18 through 21w ith IDD. These students were still receiving special education services. After ineligible programs were excluded, a total of 52 responses to the survey were received (Pap ay & Bambara, 2011). More than half (58%) of these postsecondary transition programs for stude nts with IDD were located on 2 year college campuses, while 42% of programs were located on 4 year college or university campuses. Approximately one quarter of all students with IDD enrolled in the surveyed postsecondary education programs were reportedly taking college classes. A higher percentage of the students with IDD took classes as part of individualiz ed programs than in mixed model programs. Thirty four ind ividualized programs (100%) reported that at least one student was taking a colle ge class. Littl e difference was revealed i n the number of students with I DD taking college classes at 2 year versus 4 year college s (Papay & Bambara, 2011). Of students reported to be taking college classes for credit, only a small number were classified 2011, p. 86). Most and the most students listed as informally taking college classes were those with mild (n=24) or moderate (n=31) mental retardation

PAGE 69

69 classes (n=2), and no students with IDD were matriculated into college degree programs (Papay & Bambara, p. 86). A greater number of programs reported accommodations made by their progra m for college classes audited or taken informally (n=18) than for cred it (n=6) or noncredit (n=8) the accommodation cited least frequently across all college course types (Papay & Bambara, 2011, p. 89). Papay and Bambara (2011) suggested that programs based on college campuses might be postsecondary educati on programs (p. 90). Almost all program coordinators who responded to the 2008 survey indicated that the purpose of students being o n a college campus was to provide Pa rticipation in college classes was a purpose cited less frequently than vocational training, inclusion with same age peers, or development of independent living skills. A 2009 online survey of 244 programs was conducted by the Institute for Community Inc lusion (ICI) of the University of Massachusetts Boston (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012). Respondents from 149 programs in institutions of higher education in 39 states indicated that they served students with intellectual disability (ID). In 2009, four year colleges or universities accounted for 51% of responding programs, followed by two year colleges (20%) and trade/technical schools (10%). Forty five percent of respondents indicated that their college programs served adult students 18 years or older who w ere no longer receiving special e ducation services under IDEA. Dually enrolled students who continued to receive special education

PAGE 70

70 services under IDEA w ere served by 26% of responding programs, and 29% of 118 responding programs served both groups of stud ents (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012). Both recent surveys (Papay and Bambara, 2011; Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012) found that the primary focus of most programs was independent living skills and/or employment, rather than academic access. Independent living/lif e skills was the primary focus reported by 34% of 91 responding postsecondary programs for students with ID (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012). Employment was the primary focus indicated by 32% of responding programs. Only 18% of responding postsecondary progr ams for students with ID selected college course access as the primary focus of their programs. Twelve percent of responding programs selected self determination and 3% indicated social skills as the primary focus of their programs for students with intel lectual disability (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012). Statement of the Problem Previous surveys of transition postsecondary programs across the US have demonstrated growth in the number of programs available to students with intellectual di sabilities. Tho se su rveys also highlighted common program locations ( 2 and 4 year colleges) and models such as individualized inclusive, mixed model, and substantial ly separate programs. While tho se researchers commented briefly on some connections between program character istics and levels of academic access, such as the unanimous purpose of college course access among individualized inclusive programs (Papay & Bambara, 2011), no real exploration of these relationships was conducted. As professional s look to the literature for example s and guidance, they will benefit require literature that better defines the current state of practice and the programs and program types that best exemplify inclusive academic access.

PAGE 71

71 Discussion What is the State of Practice? Twenty seven T ransition Postsecondary programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSIDs) were serving 470 students on 30 campuses as of 2010 2011 and 792 students on 41 campuses as of 2011 2012 (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2013). The number of articles and publica tions related to postsecondary options for students with ID is quite large; however, the number of documents relevant to inclusive academic acc ess is quite small This small group of articles certainly does not represent all the transition postsecondary p rograms addressing academics in the United States. H owever, progra ms and researchers have not previously addressed inclusive academic access as defined by the new Think College standards Few TPSID model demonstrat ion projects are included in previous li terature, because these sites are currently conducting research. prog ress toward meeting the Think College standards will be informative to all who support inclusive higher education for students with ID St udies of inclusive academic access can be instructive to programs looking for guidance. In each of five TPSID programs visited by the national coordinating center Think College staff observed various promising practices, including many practices cited in transition literature as predictors that lead to post school success ( Cobb & Alwell, 2007 ). These promising philosophies and practices included program features that engendered pride and seemed to be eliciting positive outcomes for students (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). What Is Our P rogress toward the Inclusive Academic Access Standard? As of March 2013, sixteen programs have already been approved as C omprehensive T ransition P ostsecondary (CTP) programs for participation in federal financial aid programs, programs College programs for students with ID are succeeding in meeting the inclusive

PAGE 72

72 academic access standard, the related quality indicators, and at least some of the benchmarks. Many of the current TPSID and CTP sites are nota bly absent fr om previous literature, but site visits by the national coordinating center have recently documented their implementation of inclusive academic access To get a sense of the state of practice in postsecondary programs for students with ID, Think College st aff visited five programs that have received TPSID model demonstration d Higher Program (Appendix A ). These programs reflect an array of program attributes, as well as geographic diversity. Participation in the site visits was voluntary. Site visits were s tructured to observe the level of implementation in all eight Think College Standard areas: Academic Access, Career Development, Campus Membership, Self Determination, Alignment with College Systems and Practices, Coordination and Collaboration, Ongoing Ev aluation, and Sustainability. (Weir, Grigal, Hart, & Boyle, 2013). The Think College national coordinating center is currently collecting and analyzing data on the 27 TPSID programs funded by the Office of Postsecondary Education (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2 013). Additionally, 16 TPSID sites are involved in 61 active research projects on topics such as peer attitudes, mentoring, natural supports, and writing strategies. Various methodologies are being used to examine the characteristics and impacts of posts econdary

PAGE 73

73 education programs for students with ID (Hart & Grigal, 2012). Future studies published by the national coordinating center, TPSIDs, and ap proved CTP programs will help other programs move toward alignment with Think College Standards and create effective programs. Are Contextual Factors Limiting What Programs Have to Offer? Two of the most comprehensive programs reviewed in the literature, Career and Community Studies at The College of New Jersey (Blumberg et al., 2008; Carroll et al., 2008) an d Cutting Edge at Edgewood College (Hafner, 2008; Hafner, Moffat, & Kisa, 2011) are both located at four year libe ral arts colleges. Whether any setting has advantages over other program contexts deserves exploration. A variety of programs in a variety o f settings are described in this literature revi ew As programs begin to implement the new standards, new limitations will undoubtedly be revealed, as well as creative solutions to some of these barriers. Limitations of Literature Review The keyword sear ch used to identify a pool of potential documents for this literature review may not have been exhaustive. Additional keywords and keyword combinations may have produced addit ional articles relevant to inclusive academic access The websites of TPSID and CTP programs and their promotional materials may have provided a dditional details regarding implementation of inclusive academi c access However, since there are no standards for the quality or clarity of these materials, such information was not consider ed. Future of Transition Postsecondary Programs P rovisions of the Higher Education Oppo rtunity Act (2008), Think College standards, and guidance provided by the national coordinating center will raise the bar for transition postsecondary programs serving students with ID in college settings. New opportunities will also arise from this new law and related provisions. New models w ill be available to promote expansion of inclusive higher education. More choices will be available to young adults with ID

PAGE 74

74 pur suing dream s of college and careers. M ore successes will grow from emerging and changing pr ograms, and more individuals will develop new paths to inclusive higher education. Survey of Inclusive Academic Access on College Campuses The present study surveye d US postsecondary education programs identified to the national Think College database (n=197), as of January 6, 2013. This survey explored program characteristics that may impact implementation of the inclusive academic access by transition postseconda ry programs serving students with intellectual disabilities (ID). The inclusive academic access standard, as well as related quality indicators and benchmarks, were developed by the Think College (University of Massachusetts Boston) national coordinating center (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2011) Identified programs reported their levels of implementation of 20 benchmarks. Building on previous survey research, the current study was based on descriptive statistics. Frequencies, contingency tables, and measures of association were used to reveal current implementation of inclusive academic access. Associations between program characteristics and inclusive academic access benchmarks were also explored.

PAGE 75

75 CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES Methodology Research Design The present study benefits from previous n ational outreach efforts that identified and documented 197 transition postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities throughout the United States. It builds on pr evious survey research that id entified and described the variety of transition postsecondary programs available to students with intellectual and develop mental disabilities in postsecondary education institutions across the United States (Gaumer, Morningstar, & Clark, 2004; Hart, et al ., 2004; Papay & Bambara, 2011; Grigal, Hart, & Wei r, 2012). The current survey incorporated pr ogram characteristics examined and reported in previous studies, along with the standards, quality indicators, a nd benchmarks developed by the Think College nat ional coordinating c enter Survey responses revealed the current state of practice across and within program types. Responses show e d progress toward implementation of inclusive academic access. A ssociations were revealed between specific program charact eristics and benchmarks Population and Sample At the time of survey dissemination, the number of identified US transition postsecondary programs was small (n=197) Since this survey a imed to reflect a nati onal sample, the instrument was distributed to representatives of all 197 transition postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities located within the United States and recorded in t he Think College database. T he geographic and institutional diversity of the 88 responses represent s a stratified sample of the US programs surveyed.

PAGE 76

76 Research Questions Research question 1. Which of the practices promoted by the Think College Benchmarks appear to be most prevalent across the programs identified to the Think College database? Frequenc ies were used to determine the b enchmarks being implemented most often across programs, as well as to identify b enchmarks implemented least often C ontingency table s classified respo nses according to all categories of each selected program characteristi c / predictor variable : (a) type of students served (b) program model and (c) agency/organization responsible for operating the college program. The table also classified responses according to all levels of implement at ion for each b enchmark : 0 = not pla nnin g to implement, 1 = zero current students 2 = in progress but not fully implemented, or 3 = fully implemented with at least 25% of current students Research question 2 Do any program characteristics predict the implementation of more or fewer b enchmarks? The contingency tables and reported frequencies were examined to discover the program characteristics associated with implem entation of greater numbers of b enchmarks Reported frequencies were also examined to determine characteristics of progr ams implementing lesser numbers of b enchmarks. Research question 3. Which specific program characteristics predict the implementation of particular Benchmarks? Contingency tables, chi square to e valuate the independence of variables and strength of associations between specific program characteristics and particular benchmarks. To prevent expected frequencies from proving too small for the calculation of chi square, ordinal levels were consolidat ed to permit the calculation of the chi square statistic. Levels of fully implemented and in process were consolidated into an

PAGE 77

77 implementing category. Levels of zero current students and no plans to implement were combined into a not implementing category Finally, adult services agency responses were recorded within the other organization category. When a relationship between two variables was reveal ed by the chi strength of the rel ationship. Instrument: Internet Survey An onli ne survey was distributed for the present study. Previous research on this topic using internet surveys of transition postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities yielded satisfactory ret urn rates of approximately 63 % to 64% (Papay & Bambara, 2011; Grigal, Hart, & W eir, 2012). Programs being surveyed have also responded to this survey format in previous studies. Since the costs of administering, distributing, and maintaining an internet survey are smaller than for other sur vey modes (Dillman et al. 2009) and data can be collected and managed efficiently, the internet was considered the mo st viable mode for the current survey. A unique link was sent to the contact email address associate d with each of the 197 identified US transition posts econdary programs Sample: All Identified Programs The present study benefits from previous national outreach efforts of the Institut e for Community Inclusion at the Uni versity of Massachusetts Boston (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012). The ICI is now the site of the Think College national coordinating center for transition postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities (TPSIDs). The current survey was distri buted to all programs that me t Think College standards for incl usion in the national database The 88 r esponses reflect ed the current geographical distribution of identified transition postsecondary programs without regional gaps, across 32 sta tes

PAGE 78

78 Survey Development The survey inst rument was designed as a measurement tool for technical assistance visits, by the National Coordinating Center, to programs seeking to implement the TC Standards (2012 ). This instrument, used with permission, is available at the Think College website and is Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2011 ; Think College, 2012 ). Modifications (Think College, 2012) instrument was adapted to suit the current s tudy. First, each benchmark was reworded in the form of a question to be answered by the respondent. Also, benchmark s evaluating more than one element were split into multiple q uestions. Each question required responding programs to rate the level of imp lementation of onl y one element of a practice Questions about program characteristics were derived from previous research (Papay & Bambara, 2011; Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012) and were not included in the Think College Standards or Implementation Scale. S caling The Think College Standards with Implementation Scale (Think C ollege, 2012) instrument includes a 4 p oint ordinal scale for documenting the level of implementation for each benchmark of the Think College standard s A rating of Level 0 indicate s that a program does not plan to implement the practice. Programs use a rating of Level 1 to indicate that the practice i s not being implemented with current s tudents. A rating of Level 2 means that the benchmark i s being implemented with at least one current stud ent, and a rating of Level 3 indicates that the practice was fully implemented with at least one quarter of current students

PAGE 79

79 Program Eligibility Any program that served students with intellectual disabilities, as defined u nder the Higher Education O pportunity Act of 2008 (P.L. 110 315 Title VII, Part D, Section 760), was eligible for the current survey. Programs serving students who are currently or were formerly eligible for a free appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabiliti es Act of 2004 (IDEA, P.L. 108 446) were also eligible for the survey. Survey Items Eligibility Eligibility q uestion 1. Are you affiliated with one or more transition postsecondary programs for students wi th intellectual disabilities? Eligibility q uestion 2. Does your program serve students with intellectual disabilities, as defined by IDEA and/or HEOA 2008 (see definition given above)? These two questions were designed to determine whether responding college programs were designed for, or at least servin g, students with intellectual disabilities. A ny respondent not affiliated with a t ransition postsecondary program designed for students with intellectual disabilities needed to affirm that the program does serve students with intellectual disabilities in order to be considered eligible for the surve y. All 88 respondents reported that their programs were eligible for inclusion in the study. Program c haracteristics For the current survey, each program characteristic was divided into two to six categories. Two program characteristics that have received much attention in previous research and literature on postsecondary programs for students with ID are the type of stude nts participating and the models of the programs. Discussion has often centered on wheth er participating students are considered high school students with continuing eligibility for a free

PAGE 80

80 and appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004), dually enrolled in high sch ool and higher education; and/or adult students who have graduated or exited from secondary education. The following surve y items attempt to capture the types of students and the types of programs currently included in the array of transition postsecondary options available to students w ith ID. Question 3 : How would you characterize the students with intellectual disabilities participating in your college program? Students could be characterized as high school students who are still receiving special education services under the Individua ls with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004). Programs could also report serving students who have graduated or exited from high school Alternatively, programs could indicate that they are serving both students receiving special e ducation services un der IDEA and students who have graduated or exited from high school Mixed p rograms were not required to sp ecify whether students from high school and adult age group s were served together or separately. Question 7 How would you characterize your college program for students with intellectual disabilities (ID)? A respondent could report that an i nclusive individualized support model a m ixed model or a s ubstantially separate model best characterized their coll ege program Grigal, Hart, and Weir (2012) d efin ed the three predominant program models for postsecondary programs serving students with intellectual disabilities. In a program with a substantially separate model s tudents with ID receive services in a postsecondary setting, but they participate on ly in classes with other students who have disabilities.

PAGE 81

81 A mixed model program implies that s tudents with ID participate in social activities and / or academic classes with students who do not have disabilities. In mixed model programs, s tudents with ID a lso participate in classes with other students who have disabilities, sometimes called life skills or tr ansition classes The i nclusive individualized support model enables s tudents with ID to access college courses, certificate programs, and/or degree pr o grams for audit or credit. Students with ID are supported with individualized services, such as educational coach es tutor s technology, peer mentors, and other supports. As discussed earlier, a variety of legi slative and policy actions set the stage for development of transition postsecondary programs in the United States. These legal and policy issues have varying relevance to transition postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities. The following survey items attempt to identify th e status of each program in terms of federal definition, approval, and funding. Question 8. Does your program for students with intellectual disabilities (ID) meet the above definition of "transition postsecondary program"? Under the Higher Education Oppor tunity Act (2008), a transition postsecondary program is defined as a degree, certificate, or non degree program that is offered on a college or university campus and is designed to support students with intellectual disabilities who want to continue acade mic, career, and/or independent living instruction. Question 9. Has your college program been approved as a CTP program? A comprehensive transition postsecondary (CTP, Smith Lee, 2009) program has been approved by the U.S. Department of Education to offe r Federal Pell Grant, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, and Federal Work Study financial aid to enrolled students with

PAGE 82

82 intellectual disabilities. Responses to this question enabled programs to be classified as approved CTP programs or pr ograms without such status. Question 10. Has your college program received funding as a model TPSID? Twenty seven projec ts were federally funded as model demonstration transition and postsecondary programs (TPSIDs, Smith Lee, 2009) for students with intel lectual disabilities. Responses to t his question enabled programs to be classified as federally approved CTPs, federally funded TPSIDs, programs with dual status, or programs without federal approval or funding. Level of Implementation for E ach Benchmark As the national coordinating center for comprehensive transition postsecondary programs serving students with intellectual disabilities (I D), Think College developed a framework of eight standards, accompanying quality indicators, and benchmarks for inclus ive higher education (Grigal, Ha rt, & Weir, 2011 ; Think College, 2012 ). The current survey used items adapted from Standards, Quality Indicators, and Benchmarks developed by Grigal, Hart, and Weir (2011), Think College, Institute for Community Inclusi on, University of Massachusetts Boston. Each of the survey items represents a Think College of inclusive academic access developed by the national coordinating center. For eac h benchmark, respondents indicate d the current level of implementation by their prog indicate d that a program wa s implementing a given benchmark, zero benchmark was not being implemente d by a program. L ev els of implementation were q uantified during creation of the current survey. Prop o rtion s (e.g., at least 25%) were not a ssigned to the levels of implementation by Think College.

PAGE 83

83 A student is considered enrolled in a course if he or she officially registers for the course. In contrast, a student who audits a course does not officially register for the course. An audited course provides no credit and no grade. Participants generally receive no grades for assignments or assessments. Audit ed courses are not reflected on the academic transcript. Finally, students with ID may experience college classes for which they do not receive credit or status as auditing students. For the current survey, those students are considered to be participati ng informally. Five su rvey items document the specific ways students with ID are currently participating in acad emics in postsecondary settings: Are program participants with intellectual di sabilities (ID) enrolled in non credit, non degree courses (such as continuing education courses) attended by students without disabilities? Are program participants with ID auditing college courses attended by students without disabilities? Are program participants with ID participating informally in college courses at tended by students without disabilities? Are program participants with ID enrolled in credit bearing courses attended by students without disabilities? Are program participants with ID completing and receiving credit for credit bearing courses in which the y enroll? Five a dditional survey items explored the ways that college courses were selected by and for students with ID. These questions included: postsecondary plans? D o program participants with ID have access to existing courses rather than separate courses designed only for students with disabilities? Do program participants with ID have college course access that is not limited to a pre determined list? Are program p articipants with ID participating in courses that relate to their personal, academic, and career goals?

PAGE 84

84 Are program participants with ID participating in person centered planning? Finally, ten questions were intended to assess the ways that college program s facilitated participation by students with ID. Access to tools and services are addressed here, as well as program and college policies. Issues that ma y impact participation are addressed by the following survey items: Have college policies regarding t esting been modified or adjusted to enable course participation by students with ID? Have college policies regarding prerequisites been modified or adjusted to enable course participation by students with ID? Do program participants with ID have access to needed public or personal transportation ? Do program participants with ID receive instruction in the use of needed public or personal transportation? Do program participants with ID access the college Disability Services Office for accommodations typically provided by that office? Do program participants with ID have access to needed technology? Do program participants with ID receive instruction in the use of needed technology? Do program participants with ID have access to paid educational coaches who rec eive ongoing training and supervision? Do program participants have access to peer supports such as mentors, tutors, and campus ambassadors? Do professors and instructors who serve program participants with ID receive training in universal design for learn ing principles? The levels of implementation reported for each of these benchmarks were: fully implemented ( i.e., at least 25% of current program participants); in process, but not fully implemented ( i.e., at least one current program participant); not cur rently proceeding toward implementation ( i.e., zero current program participants); or not planning to implement.

PAGE 85

85 Review of Surve y T he following individuals were invited to review the proposed study for content validity and usability: one representative of the National Coordinating Center, one of the developers of a previous survey, one representative of an institution awarded a TPSID model demonstration grant, and one representa tive of a program approved as a CTP prog ram. After four responses were receive d, comments on usability and sugge stions for modification were considered and necessary modifications were made before the online survey wa s disseminated. Data Collection Procedures and Time period Invitation emails containing un ique links to the survey were sent to the contact email addresses of each of the 197 identified US transition postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities. Contact information for questions, concerns, and additional information, was included. After two w ee ks, a follow up email was sent to each program that had not responded. A final invitation was emailed two weeks after the follow up email. Incentives Respondents wer e given the option to provide a contact email address to receive survey results and findin gs upon completion of the study. Invitations to participate in the survey express ed students with intellectual disabilities. No other incentives for par ticipation in the s urvey were offered or implied. Data Analysis Square Test square test (Pearson, 1900) can be used to determine whether there is a relationship between two categorical variables. The chi 2 ) is based on the

PAGE 86

86 comparison of frequencies observed in certain categories to the frequencies expected in those categories by chance (Field, 2010). A chi square test for two way designs involves two independent cate gorical variables, each with two or more levels, as well as a dependent variable in the form of a frequency count (Shavelson, 1996). These data can be displayed in a cross tabulated contingency table. The purpose of the chi square test for a two way desi gn is to determine whether the two categorical variables are independent of one another. The chi square test for two way designs was used to test the null hypothesis that implementation of benchmarks is independent of program characteristics for the survey ed po pulation. A significance level of .05 was used for determining whether or not to reject the null hypothesis of independence. The null hypothesis being tested is that levels of implementation of specific benchmarks are independent of the categories of program characteristics that describe transition postsecondary programs included in the Think College database. The alternative hypothesis being tested was that certain program characteristics do predict the implementation of specific benchmarks. Assumpt ions of the chi square test of independence The chi square test of independence must meet the following requirements: 1. Each observation must fall into only one of the discrete, non overlapping categories being compared. 2. Each observation can fall into only o ne cell of the contingency table. 3. Each observation is independent of every other observation. 4. Observations are reported as frequencies. C ollapsing levels of variables in a chi square t est In order to calculate the chi square statistic correctly, expected frequencies must be greater than 10 for a test with one degree of freedom ( df Shavelson, 1996). Also, no more than

PAGE 87

87 20% of expected frequencies can be less than 5 for tests with df variable can help to boost expected frequenc 2 statistic to be calculated. However, the combination of levels of a variable must make conceptual sense (Shavelson, 1996). For this study, levels of impl ementation were implemented an planning to implement) catego ries. The small group of responding programs administered by adult services agencies was combined with the group administered by other organizations T hese cha nges did not alter the nature and meaning of the responses. Measure of Association Measures of association summarize the strength of association between two variables (Rovai, Baker, & Ponton, 2012). Most measures of association are scaled from 0 (no relationship) to 1 (perfect correlation) without indicating the direction of the relationship between variables. Several measures of association are based on the chi square test of independence. The chi square statistic may not indicat e the strength of a relationship, since the size of the statistic differs based on the sample size (Rovai, Baker, & Ponton, 2012). square based me asure of association, for nominal data, that factors out sample size (Field, 2010; Rovai, number of rows and columns in a contingency table is unequal (Field, 2010). The contingency table s used for the current study were tables of two columns: implementing or not implementing Three rows com pared types of students served, types of program models, or types of administrative organizations.

PAGE 88

88 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Basis for Research Questions As discussed in chapter one, a variety of legislative milestones have marked the pathway to inclusive postse condary education for students with intellectual disabilities (ID). The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (P.L. 110 315) created important opportunities for students with ID, educators, and other practitioners interested in this growing field. The HEOA has also necessitated research that can move the field towards broader coverage of the needs and interests of students with ID and their families. This coverage must be provided through promising, proven, and evidence based practices. The three res earch questions addressed by this study are: 1. Which of the practices promoted by the Think College Benchmarks appear to be most prevalent across the programs identified to the Think College database? 2. Do any program characteristics predict the implemen tation of more or fewer benchmarks ? 3. Which specific program characteristics predict the implementation of particular Benchmarks? The present study measured the reported state of practice in inclusive postsecondary education against the Think College stan dards, quality indicators, and benchmarks. These recently developed indicators of program effectiveness can serve as guidelines for program development by practitioners and/or program selection by consumers. F indings of the present study can be used by r esearchers and practitioners to expand the implementation of inclusive academic access across college programs serving students with ID. Research Findings The research findings within this chapter are presented in the following sequence: (1) descri ptive statistics are presented on the characteristics of the sample; (2) data from frequency analyses are described, to identify the most and least prevalent practices, in response to the first

PAGE 89

89 research question ; (3) data that reveal program characteristic s associated with implementation of the greatest number of benchmarks are presented, in response to the second research question ; and (4) data from chi square tests of independence dependence and the strength of assoc iation for identified relationships, are presented t o answer the third research question Descriptive Statistics Characteristics of Responding P rograms The number of responses received for this study was 103 respondents of 270 total contacts for the 19 7 U.S. transition postsecondary programs identified through the Think College database of college programs for students with intellectual disabilities (ID). A tota l of three email invitations were potentially received by each program contact: ( 1) an initi al invitation to all 270 contacts, ( 2) a reminder notice to all contacts who had not responded ( 3) a final reminder email to all contacts who had still not responded. Each notice included a hyperlink to the online survey. respondents gave reasons such as program discontinued, program did not include academic access in a college setting, or program did not include students with ID. More than one individual responded on behalf of ten programs. In these cases, the more complete or first response received was the source of data used for analysis. The resu lting total sample size for the present study was 88 ( 44.7% ) of the 197 transition postsecondary programs for stude nts with ID listed in the Think College database at the time the online survey was disseminated. All 88 programs met the eligibility criteria of operating a transition postsecondary program for students with ID and/or including students with ID in a colle ge based program. Respondents represented programs in 32 states across all regions of the United States,

PAGE 90

90 Types of students Exactly 25% (n = 22) of the 88 respondents ( Table 4 1) indicated that their transition postsecondary programs included only stude nts who continue to receive special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Educatio n Act (IDEA, 2004). Her e after these students are called high school students. While the high school students range in age from 18 through 21 years an d may or may not be served in high school settings, they have continuing eli gibility for a special education services under IDEA. Only programs for high school students indicated that students with continuing eligibility for secondary education are partic ipating in high school settings as part of their transition postsecondary programs. However, 19 programs indicated that high school was the only institution in which these students were enrolled or matriculated ( Tabl e 4 4) Thirty five percent (n = 31) o f responding programs reported that they serve only students with ID who have graduated or exited from high school. Although they may be as youn g as 18, these students are called adult students. Students who have graduated or exited from high school typi cally do not have continuing eligibility for secondary education under IDEA. Adult students were reportedly par ticipating in trade schools, 2 year colleges, 4 year colleges, and universities. Almost 40% (n = 35) of responding programs reported serving both students who continue to receive special education services under IDEA and students who have graduated or exited from hi gh school. Programs that serve both high s chool and adult students are referred to as mixed program s. These programs may include high school and adult students in the same learning settings and activities, or they may have programs for high school students administered separately from the programs offered to adult students. Respondents were not asked to specify whether high school and adult students participate in separate or integrated programs, as this

PAGE 91

91 differentiation is beyond the scope of the present stud y. Mixed p rogram s repor ted trade/technical schools, 2 year colleges, 4 year colleges, and universities as settings in which t heir students were enrolled. Only four programs serving both high school and adult students indicated that high school was a setting in which their students participate. Program models All 88 respondents indicated that their programs meet the definition of transition postsecondary program given in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. However, only 87 programs specified the type of model that best described their college progr am. Approximately 54% (n = 47 ) of responding programs indicated that t hey used a mixed model for including students with ID in postsecondary e ducation. Another 35.6% (n = 31 ) of responding transition postsecondary programs reported using an inclusive individualized support model for supporting students with ID in inclusive higher education. Approximately 10.2% (n = 9) of respondents described their transition postsecondary programs for students with ID as substantially separate from the institutions of higher education where they are located. Approved and model demonstrati on programs Twelve approved Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary programs (CTPs) and 18 funded Transition Postsecondary programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSIDs) responded to the survey. Eight CTPs reported using mixed model prog rams which include college experiences with students without disabilities, as well as separate programming for students with disabilities. F our of these federally approved CTP programs indicated inclusive individualized support models which include access to existing college courses populated by students without disabilities Thirteen of the model demonstration TPSIDs reported using a mixed model to include students with ID on their higher education campuses. The other five TPSIDs reported using inclusiv e individualized support models to serve students with ID.

PAGE 92

92 Organizations administering transition postsecondary programs Colleges and universities were designated as the entities primarily responsible for operating almost 7.59% (n = 50 ) of the 86 program s that responded to this question Other organizations were reported as overseeing over 19% (n = 17) of responding college programs for students with ID. These other organizations included school district and university partnerships, high school and univ University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities or Center for Autism and Re lated Disabilities), and independent nonprofit agencies. A school district was reported as the lead agency responsible for operating approximately 16% (n = 14) of responding college programs for students with ID. Adult services agencies reportedly admini stered 6% (n = 5) of responding transition postsecondary programs on college campuses. Program settings Thirty five of 88 responding transition postsecondary programs listed high school as a setting of enrollment for students with intellectual disabil ities. Another 20 responding programs reported that students with ID were enrolled in high school only. Enrollment in high school and institutions of higher education was reported by 15 programs. Seven of these programs reported high school plus two year colleges. Two programs reported that students with ID are enrolled in high school and four year college. Four more transition postsecondary programs indicated that their students were enrolled in high school plus universities, a nd two other programs showed enrollment in high school plus multiple institutions of higher education. While all 88 responding programs reported on the settings in which their students with intellectual disabilities participated, only 82 programs reported on the settings in which their

PAGE 93

93 students were enrolled. More than 59% of the responding transition postsecondary programs (n = 49) did not indicate that students with ID were enrolled in high school. Although 20 of these 49 programs served both high schoo l and adult students, the programs reported enrollment in only the following higher education settings: trade schools (n = 3), two year colleges (n = 19), four year colleges (n = 8), and universities (n = 19). Eight of these 49 transition postsecondary pr ograms reported that students with ID were enrolled in multiple institutions of higher education, and six indicated that other community locations were accessed as part of their programs. Other community locations included vocational education and employm ent settings. Five responding programs did not indicate where their students with ID were enrolled. Frequency Distributions Data were analyzed to determine the inclusive academic access benchmarks being implemented most and least frequently by transition postsecondary programs. Frequency analyses were conducted to identify: (a) benchmarks implemented by many program s; (b) the benchmarks not being implem ented by some programs; (c) benchmarks being implemented most and least frequently with diffe rent types of students ; (d ) benchmarks being implemented most and least frequently by diffe rent types of programs; (e ) benchmarks being implemented most and least frequently by approved Comprehensive Transition Postseconda ry programs (CTPs); and (f ) benchmarks being implemented most and least frequently by funded model transition postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities (TPSIDs). Implementation of Inclusive Academic Access Benchmarks Qual ity indicator 1.1: Access to a Wide Array of College C ourses Attended by Students Without D isabilities Frequency analyses were obtained for each benchmark within this quality indicator of the inclusive academic access standard ( TC Standards, 2012 ). Frequency data are first presented as

PAGE 94

94 it was reported by thr ee types of programs : programs s erving high school students still receiving special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 ( 34 CFR 300.43 ); programs serving adult students ages 18 and older, who have exited public school and no longer have eligibility for special education services under IDEA; and mixed programs serving students who fa ll into both of these groups. Mixed p rograms were not required to report whether these students were included in the same pr ograms and settings or in separate programs. Frequency data are also presented according to the three program types reported by 87 responding programs. The program models were as follows : Substantially separate model students with ID receive services i n a postsecondary setting, but they participate only in classes with other students who have disabilities; Mixed model students with ID participate in social activities and / or academic classes with students who do not have disabilities. Students with ID also participate in classes with other students who have disabilities; Inclusive individualized support model Students with ID access college courses, certificate programs, and/or degree programs and are supported by individualized services. Finally frequency data are presented according to the administrative organizations reported as responsible for operating the 86 college programs that responded to this question The four categories of administrative organizations used were school district, coll ege / university, adult services agency, and other organization Othe r organizations included independent nonprofit agencies, specific university departments or offices, partnerships between school districts and adult services agencies, partnerships betwe en school districts and colleges / universities, and regional education collaboratives. Ranked implementation of benc hmar ks across all programs, is presented (Figure 4 1 ) Ranked implementation of benchmarks related to cours e access is also presented (Fi gur e 4 2)

PAGE 95

95 separately from ranked implementation of benchmarks addressing issues that may impact participation (Table 4 3). The mean implementation of benchmarks is shown, according to types of students served, program model s, and types of administra tive o rganizations (T able 4 4 ). Differences in the implementation of functio nally related benchmarks are specified in the prevalence section. Benchmark 1.1D: Access to existing c ourses Access to existing courses, rather than separate courses designed only for students with disabilitie s, was reported by 79.1 % (n = 68 ) of the responding programs for student s with ID. Approximately 62.8 % (n = 54) of the programs indicated that they have fully implemented this benchmark. Another 17 .4 % (n = 15) of responding progr ams indicated that they had implemented access to existing courses with at least one student. Only 10.5 % (n = 9) of programs indicated that they do not plan to implement access to existing courses for their students ( Table 4 6 ) Benchmark 1.1E: College co urse access not limited to a pre determined list Approximately 70.6 % (n = 60 ) of the 85 responding programs indicated that access to existing courses was not limited to a predetermined list of courses, and 55.3% (n = 47 ) of programs reported that they ha d fully implemented college course access beyond a pre determined list with at least one quarter of their students with ID. While 29.7% (n = 25 ) of responding programs were not currently implementing access beyond a pre determ ined list of courses, only 8. 2% (n = 7) of programs indicated no plans to imple ment broader access to courses beyond a pre determined list ( Table 4 9 ) Benchmark 1.1A: Access to non credit courses Enrollment in non credit, non degree courses attended by students without disabilities wa s reported for at le ast one current student in 50% (n = 43) of the 86 programs that responded to this

PAGE 96

96 question Approximately 38.4% (n = 33) of programs r eported full implementation of this benchmark with at least one quarter of current participants. Onl y 22.1% (n = 19 ) of respondents indicated that their programs did not plan to implement enrollment in non credit courses for their students with ID ( Table 4 12 ) Benchmark 1.1B: A ccess to audited c ourses or informal participation Approximately 56.3% (n = 49 ) of the 87 programs that responded to the question reported that students with ID were auditing college courses attended by students wit hout disabilities. Almost 39.1% (n = 34) of respondents indicated that their transition postsecondary programs had ful ly implemented this benchmark. Almost one quarter (n = 21) of responding programs did not plan to implement auditing of courses by students with ID ( Table 4 15 ) Informal participation in college courses attended by students without disabilities wa s repor ted by 53.5% (n = 46 ) of the 86 programs that responded to this question Approximately 38.4% (n = 33) of respondents indicated that their transition postsecondary programs had implemented this benchmark with at least one quarter of current students. App roximately 32.6% (n = 28) of responding programs did not plan to implement informal participation as a means of including students with ID in college courses ( Table 4 18 ) Benchmark 1.1C: Access to credit c ourses Enrollment in credit bearing coursework by students with ID was reported by 48.8 % (n = 42 ) of the 86 transition postse condary programs that responded to this question Approximately 33.7% (n = 29) of programs reported having fully implemented credit coursework with at least one quarter of their st udents Approximately 21% (n = 18 ) of responding programs did not plan to implement enrollment in credit coursework by students with ID ( Table 4 21 ) Survey respondents reported that students in 47.7% (n = 41 ) of the 86 programs that responded to the qu estion are receiving credit for college courses. Approximately 33.7% (n =

PAGE 97

97 29) of programs indicated that at least one quarter of students with ID were completing and receiving credit for their courses. These 29 programs had also reported full implementa tion of enrollment in credit bearing courses. Approximately 14% (n = 12 ) of responding transition postsecondary programs indicated that they are in the process of enabling students with ID to complete and receive credit for credit bearing courses. Howeve r, 28% (n = 24 ) of respondents indicated that their programs did not plan to implement completion of courses and earning of credit by students with ID (Table 4 24 ) Benchmark 1.1F: Alignment of courses with individualized goals Representatives from 83 .9% ( n = 73 ) of the 87 programs that responded to the question postsecondary plans. Just 63.2% (n = 55 ) of these programs reported having implemented this benchmark with at least one quarter of their current students. A pproximately 20.4 % (n = 18 ) of programs reported having implemented this benchmark with at least one student. Only 4.6% (n = 4) of programs indicated that they did not plan to implement this benchmark ( Table 4 27 ) Respondents indicated that 90.6 % (n = 77 ) of the 85 transition postsecondary programs that responded to the question indicated that students with ID are participating in courses that relate to their personal, academic, and career goals. Full implementation of this benchmark was reported by 74.1% (n = 6 3) of programs. Only two of the respondents indicated that their and career goals ( Table 4 30 ) Approximately 88 .4% (n = 76 ) of the 86 programs that responded to the question reported that students with ID did participate in person centered planning. Full implementation of this benchmark with at least one quarter of their students was reported by 74 .4 % (n = 64 ) programs. Approximately 7% (n = 6) of the responding programs reported that zero current

PAGE 98

98 students were participating in person centered planning. Only four responding programs did not plan to implement this benchmark ( Table 4 33 ) Quality in dicator 1.2: Address issues that may impact course participation The benchmarks of quality indicator 1.2 address the accommodations, modifications, and other supports that students with intellectual disabilities (ID) may require to participate in the acade mic settings and classes that they access through college based transition postsecondary programs. While some of these benchmarks can be implemented by programs themselves, several benchmarks require policy changes by academic institutions in which progra ms are located and students with ID are participating and/or enrolled. The frequency and comparative prevalence of benchmarks that address issues potentially impacting course participation by students with ID are provided below Benchmark 1.2A: College po licies regarding placement tests and prerequisites Among 84 responding programs, approximately 44% (n = 37) of respondents reported that college policies regarding testing have been modified or adjusted to enable course participa tion by students with ID. Approximately 32.1% (n = 27 ) of respond ing programs indicated full implementation of this benchmark with at least one quarter of their studen ts. Approximately 35.7 % of respondents indicated that their transition postsecondary programs for students with ID did not plan to implement modification of testing requirements ( Table 4 36 ) Approximately 41.7% (n = 35) of responding programs reported that college policies regarding prerequisites have been modified or adjusted to enable college course particip ation, and almost 29.8% (n = 25) of responding programs reported having fully implemented the benchmark with at least one quarter of their students wi th. Approximately 31% ( n = 26) of respondents reported no plans to implement modification of prerequisite polic ies (Table 4 39 )

PAGE 99

99 Ben chmark 1.2C: Access to college disability s ervices for accommodations A lmost 67.5% (n = 56) of 83 responding college programs indicated that students with ID cally provided by that office. Full implementation of DSO access, with at least one quarter of their students, was reported by 56.6% (n = 47 ) of programs. While almost 20.5% (n = 17) of programs indicated that zero current students were currently accessi ng the DSO, only 12% (n = 10 ) of programs reported no plans to implement such access for students with ID ( Table 4 42 ) Benchmark 1.2D: Access to and instruction in the use of needed technology Approximately 97.6% (n = 83) of 85 responding programs reporte d that students with ID are a ccessing needed technology. Approximately 87.1% (n = 74 ) of these p rograms indicated that they had fully implemented this benchmark with at least one quarter of current students. Just one responding transition postsecondary p rograms for students with ID reported zero current students accessing needed technology. Only one program indicated no plans to implement such access for their students ( Table 4 45 ) Of 84 responding programs, over 96.4% (n = 81 ) of respondents indicated that they provide technology instruction to students with intellectual disabilities. Full implementation of this benchmark, with at least one quarter of current students with ID, was reported by almost 85.7% (n = 72 ) of programs. Only two responding pro grams reported zero current students acces sing technology instruction. One other program indicated that they had no plans to implement technology instruction for their students ( Table 4 4 8 ) Benchmark 1.2G: Faculty training in universal design for learnin g principles Approximately 66.7 % (n = 56 ) of 84 responding programs indicated that professors and instructors who serve students with ID received training in universal design for learning ( UDL) principles. F ull implementation of UDL training with at least one quarter of current instructors

PAGE 100

100 was reported by only 32.1% (n = 27) of programs. Exactly 25% (n = 21) of programs reported that zero curr ent professors and instructors we re receiving UDL tr aining. Only 8.3% (n = 7) of programs indicated that they did not plan to implement such training for professors and instructors serving students with ID ( Table 4 51 ) Benchmark 1.2F: Access to peer support Approximately 88 .1 % (n = 74) of 84 responding transition postsecondary programs indicated that students with I D had access to peer supports, such as mentors, tutors, an d campus ambassadors. Responses from 79.8% (n = 67 ) of these programs indica ted that they have fully implemented this benchmark with at least one quarter of their students. O nly 4.8% (n = 4) of th e responding college programs indicated that they had no plans to implement peer supports for students with ID (Table 4 54 ) Benchmark 1.2E: Access to educational coaches Of 82 responding programs, almost 74.4% (n = 61 ) respondents reported that students w ith intellectual disabilities had access to paid educational coaches who receive ongoing supervis ion and training. Approximately 64.6% (n = 53) of programs indicated that they had fully implemented this benchmark with at least one quarter of their student s. Only four programs reported that zero current students were working with paid educational coaches. H owever, almost 21% (n = 17 ) of responding programs indicated that they had no plans to implement paid educational coaches for students with ID (Table 4 57 ) Benchmark 1.2B: Access to and instruction in the use of needed transportation Access to needed transportation was reported by 97.6% (n = 83 ) of 85 responding programs for students with intellectual disabilities. Full implementation of this benchmar k, with at least one quarter of students with ID, was reported by 92.9% (n = 79 ) programs. Only 2.4% (n = 2) indicated that zero current participants were accessing naturally occurring transportation

PAGE 101

101 options. No programs reported that they did not plan t o implement transportation access for students with ID (Table 4 60 ) A pproximately 92.9 % (n = 79) of 85 respondents indicated that students with intellectual disabilities had access to instructio n in needed transportation. Approximately 83.5% (n = 71 ) of responding transition postsecondary programs reported that they had fully implemented this benchmark with at least one quarter of their students with ID. Three programs indicated that they did not plan to implement transportation instruction for students with ID, and three more respondents indicated that they did not plan to implement transportation instruction (Table 4 63) Prevalence of Practices Access to a Wide Array of College Course T ypes The most prevalent practice, related to course access, was course alignment with (Figure 4 1) Of the 85 programs that responded to the question 77 programs indicated that their students l, academ ic, and career goals. Of 86 colleg e programs that responded to the question 76 programs reported that students with intellectual disabilities were participating in person centered planning. implemented by 73 programs Access to existing courses was a b enchmark implemented by 68 responding programs. O nly 60 programs reported that students with ID had access to courses beyond a pre determined lis t. While 79% (n = 68) of responding programs reported that students with ID had acc ess to existing courses, only 70.6% (n = 60) of these programs indicated that access to courses was not lim ited to a pre determined list. O f the 87 college programs that responded to these questions 49 programs indicated that students with ID we re aud iting courses, while 46 programs reported that their students were

PAGE 102

102 participating informally in college courses. Enrollment of students with ID in noncredit courses was reported by 43 responding programs. Only 42 respondents reported that students w ith ID were enrolled i n credit bearing courses, and 41 respondents indicated that their students were completing and receiving credit for college courses (Figure 4 1) Address Issues that May Impact College Course P articipation Access to needed technology and access to needed transportation were the benchmarks reported to have the best implementation across responding programs. Each of these issues that may impact course participation was imp lemented by approximately 83 responding college programs. Techn ology instruction for students with ID was implemented by 81 programs, while 79 programs reported transportation instruction (Figure 4 2) Access to peer support was indicated b y 74 survey respondents, and 61 programs reported that students with ID had ac cess to paid educational coaches who receive d ongoing supervision and training. S tudents with ID had access to both peer supports and educational coaches in 42 responding programs Students with ID in 56 responding programs accessed accommodation through t he Faculty training in universal design for learning principles was reported by 56 responding college programs. Only 37 responding college programs reported that policies regarding testing had been adjusted to promot e acce ss to college courses, and only 35 respondents indicated that prerequisites had been modified (Figure 4 2 ) Practices Implemented Across Program Characteristics Of the 20 benchmarks associated with inclusive academic access, the mean number impleme nted by programs serving high school students (n = 22) was 12.1 benchmarks For programs serving adult students (n = 31) the mean number implemented was 13 .8 benchmarks. The mean implemented by mixed programs was 15 .1 benchmarks (Figure 4 3)

PAGE 103

103 Programs t hat reported a substantially separate model (n = 9) implemented a mean of 10.2 benchmarks. Mixed model programs reported mean implementation of 13.9 benchmarks. The mean implemented by programs with an inclusive individualized support model was 14.6 benc hmarks. For the college programs administered by school districts, the mean number of inclusive academic access benchmarks implemented was 11.1. Programs administered by colleges or universities reported impleme ntation of a mean number of 15.1 Colleges and universities administer ed more of the programs repor ting all 20 benchmarks than any other organization (n = 8). The mean number of benchmarks implemented by programs administered by adult services agencies (n = 5) was 15. There was variation within th e category of programs that responded to the survey. The 17 programs of the other organizations category reported a mean of 14.5 inclusive academic access benchmarks implemented. Other organizations included five private foundations and nonprofit agencies which reported a mean of 15.6 benchmarks implemented. Nine other organizations described themselves as partnerships 67 Center for Autism and Related D isabilities, and one University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities. These other organizations within colleges and universities reported a lower mean implementation of 10.33 ben chmarks (Figure 4 3) Exactly 25% (n = 22) of college programs for students with ID that responded to the current survey were programs with one or both types of federal appro val created by HEOA 2008. Four responding programs have been approved to offer Title IV financial assistance as

PAGE 104

104 Comprehensive Transition Postsecondary programs (CTPs). Nine responding programs have received federal funding as model demonstration projects called Transition Postsecondary programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSIDs). Nine other responding programs have been granted both CTP and TPSID status (Figure 4 4). All four CTP programs reported serving only adult students. These fo ur CTPs were all administered by colleges or universities. Three of the four responding CTPs reported using an inclusive individualized support model. Five of the responding TPSIDs (n = 9) reported serving both HS students and adult students. Two TPSIDs reported serving only high school students and two other TPSIDs served only adult students. Six TPSIDs were reported administered by colleges or universities. One TPSID was administered by a school district, one TPSID reported a partnership between a sch ool district and a university, and one TPSID was reportedly administered by an adult services agency. Five of the responding TPSIDs reported using a mixed model, while four TPSIDs reported using an inclusive individualized support model. Of the nine progr ams reporting both CTP and TPSID status, five programs served only adult students. Four programs with dual status served both high school students and adult students. Seven of the programs with both CTP and TPSID status reported being administered by col leges or universities, while two of the programs with dual status were administered by private foundations or nonprofit organizations. Eight of the nine programs with dual status reported using a mixed model. The remaining program with both CTP and TPSID status reported using an inclusive individualized support model. Programs with only CTP status (n = 4) reported a mean of 14.75 benchmarks implemented. Programs funded as model demonstration TPSIDs (n = 9) reported a mean of

PAGE 105

105 16.44 benchmarks implemente d. Finally, programs approved as CTPs and funded as TPSIDs reported a mean of 16.67 benchmarks implemented (Figure 4 4) Inferential Statistics : Tests of Independence and Measures of Association In the Survey of Inclusive Academic Access on College Campu ses, respondents were asked to report characteristics of their college programs for students with intellectual disabilities, as well as their program benchmarks representing inclusive academic access. The chi square test of independence was used to determine whether there were relationships between particular program characteristics and implementation of specific benchmarks. The null hypothesis being tested was that there is no relationship between characteristics of coll ege programs and implementation of inclusive academic access benchmarks. The alternative hypothesis being tested was that certain program characteristics do predict the implementation of specific benchmarks. Programs for Different Age Groups Implementing B enchmarks O bserved and expected frequencies were used to calculate the chi square test of students an d benchmarks associated with this characteristic. Each tab le of expected and observed values is foll owed by a table showing the chi square statistic for on each p air of nominal variables. T able s also show the degrees of freedom, the signi ficance for the chi square test of independence he significance for the measure of association. The chi square test of independence indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship between the age group(s) of students served by a college program and the implementation of access to existi 2 p = .010 ). The observed implementation frequencies of programs serving adult students and

PAGE 106

106 mixed program s were higher than the expected frequencies for those groups, while the observed frequency for programs serving only high school students was lower than expected. The rates of implementation reported by programs serving adult and mixed age students were higher than the rate of implementation reported by programs for high school students (Tables 4 66 and 4 67) Another statistically significant relationship was revealed between the age group(s) of students being served and the implementation of access to college courses beyond a pre 2 p = .029) The observed implementation frequencies of programs serving adult students and mixed program s were higher than the expected frequencies for those groups, while the observed frequency for progra ms serving only high school students was lower than expected. The rates of implementation reported by programs serving adu lt and mixed age students were higher than the rate of implementation reported by programs for high school students (Tables 4 68 and 4 69) A statistically significant relationship was indicated between the age group(s) of stud ents 2 p = .023). The observed implementation frequency for mixed programs was higher than the expected frequency for that group. The observed frequency for p rograms serving only high school students was lower than expected. The rates of implementation reported by programs serving adult and mixed age students were higher than the rate of implementation reported by programs serving only high school students (Ta bles 4 70 and 4 71) The chi square test of independence indicated another statistically significant relationship between the age group(s) of students being served and the implementation of accommodations through the coll 2 p = .000). The observed implementation frequencies of programs serving adult students and mixed

PAGE 107

107 program s were higher than the expected frequencies for those groups. The observed frequency for programs serving only high school students was lower than expected. The rates of implementation reported by programs serving adult and mixed age students were higher than the rate of implementation reported by programs for high school students (Table s 4 72 and 4 73) Finally, a statistically significant relationship was revealed between the age group(s) of students being served and the implementation of UDL training 2 (2) = 8.111, p = .017 ) The observed implementation frequencies of programs serving adult students and mixed program s were higher than the expected frequencies for those groups. The observed frequency for programs servi ng only high school students was lower than expected. The rates of implementation reported by programs serving adult and mixed age students were higher than the rate of implementation reported by programs for high school students (Tables 4 74 and 4 75) Program Types Implementing B enchmarks Additional observed and expected frequencies were used to calculate the chi square test d benchmarks associated with this characteristic. E ach table of expected and observed values is foll owed by a table showing the chi square statistic for the test of independence on each pair of nominal variables. The table s also show the degrees of freedo m, the significance for the chi square value, the C The chi square test of independence indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship between the model of a college program and the implementation of access to existing co 2 p = .013 ). The observed implementation frequency of inclusive individualized support programs was higher than the expected frequency for this group. The observed frequencies for programs using substantially separa te and mixed

PAGE 108

108 models were lower than expected. The rate of implementation reported by the substantially separate programs was lower than the rate reported by m ixed model programs and the implementation rate reported by programs using inclusive individualiz ed supports (Tables 4 76 and 4 77) A statistically significant relationship was also revealed between the model of a college program and the implementation of access to college courses beyond a pre determined list ( 2 p = .000 ). The observed implementation frequency of inclusive individualized support programs was higher than the expected frequency for this group. The observed frequencies for programs using substantially separate and mixed models wer e lower than expected. The rate of implementation reported by substanti ally separate programs was lower than the rate reported by m ixed model programs and the implementation rate reported by programs using inclusive individualized support s (Tables 4 77 and 4 78) Organizations Implementing B enchmarks A final set of observed and expected frequencies were used to calculate the chi square college pr ograms and benchmarks which proved to be associated with this characteristic. Each table of expected and observed values is foll owed by a table showing the chi square statistic for the test of independence on each pair of nominal variables. The table als o shows the degrees of freedo m, the significance for the chi the measure of association. The chi square test of independence indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship betwee n the organization administering a college program and the implementation of accommodations through the college Disability Services Office by the program 2 p = .000). The observed implementation frequencies of

PAGE 109

109 programs a dministered by school districts and other organizations were lower than the expected frequencies for those groups. The observed frequency reported by programs administered by colleges and universities was higher than expected. The implementation rate rep orted by school distri ct administered programs was lower than the rate reported by programs administered by other organizations and the implementation rate reported by college administered programs. Another statistically significant relationship was reveal ed between the organization administering a college program and the implementation of UDL training for faculty by the program 2 p = .044) The observed implementation frequencies reported by programs administered by colleg es and other organizations were higher than the expected frequencies for those groups, while the observed frequency for school district administered programs was lower than expected. The implementation rate reported by school district administered pr ogram s was lower than the rate reported by programs administered by other organizations and the implementation rate reported by college administered programs. The chi square test of independence indicates a statistically significant relationship between the org anization administering a college program and the implementation of enrollment 2 p = .001 ). The observed implementation frequency of school district administ ered programs was lower than ex pected. The observed implementation frequency for college administered programs was higher than expected. The implementation rate reported by school district administered programs was lower than the implementation rate reported by programs administered b y other organizations and the implementation rate reported by college administered programs. A significant relationship was also revealed between the organization administering a college program and the implementation of receipt of credit courses by the p 2 p = .002 )

PAGE 110

110 Table 4 1. Types of students served by responding transition postsecondary programs. Types of students Respondents High school students 22 Adult students 31 Both age groups 35 Total 88 Table 4 2. Program type s of responding transition postsecondary programs. Types of p rograms Respondents Substantially separate 9 Mixed model 47 Inclusive individualized support 3 1 Total respondents 8 7 Table 4 3. Status of responding transition postsecond ary programs Types of status Respondents Approved CTP program 12 Not approved as a CTP 76 Funded model TPSID 18 Not funded as a model TPSID 70 Table 4 4. Administrative Organizations of Responding Pr ograms Types of organizations Respondents School district 14 College / university 50 Adult services agency 5 Other organization 17 Total Respondents 86 *The number of administrative organizations does not e xceed the number of programs because respondents reported partnerships among agencies as other organizations.

PAGE 111

111 Table 4 5. Se ttings where students with intellectual disabilities participate and enroll Program setting Programs reporting student participation Programs reporting student enrollment High school 6 35 Trade/technical school 4 6 Two year college 35 29 Four year co llege 25 12 University 42 26 Total settings 112 108 *The number of settings exceeds the number of responding programs (88) because respondents could report more than one setting in which students with ID participated. **Students with ID were reportedly enrolled in four fewer settings than those in which they participated Table 4 6 Programs implementing access to existing courses Implementing Not implementing Type s tudents (N) Fully implemented (N) I n proces s Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 9 2 11 5 4 9 Adult (n = 31) 24 3 2 7 2 3 5 Both (n = 35) 21 9 30 2 2 4 Total 54 14 68 9 9 18 N = 86 Table 4 7 Program types implementing access to exist ing courses. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 2 2 4 2 3 5 Mixed model (n = 47) 26 11 37 7 3 1 0 Individualized (n = 31 ) 2 6 1 2 7 0 3 3 Total 5 4 14 68 9 9 18 N = 86

PAGE 112

112 Table 4 8 O rganizations implementing access to existing courses Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully impl emented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 3 5 8 3 3 6 College (n = 50) 36 7 43 3 3 6 Adult services (n = 5) 5 0 5 0 0 0 Other (n = 17) 9 2 11 3 3 6 Total 53 14 67 9 9 18 N = 85 Table 4 9 Programs implementing courses beyond a pre determined list. Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero student s (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 7 3 10 8 3 11 Adult (n = 31) 21 3 2 4 4 3 7 Both (n = 35) 19 7 26 6 1 7 Total 47 13 6 0 18 7 25 N = 85 Table 4 10 Progr am types implementing courses beyond a pre determined list Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 2 0 2 3 3 6 Mixed model (n = 47) 21 9 30 14 2 16 Individua lized (n = 31 ) 24 4 28 1 1 2 Total 47 1 3 6 0 18 6 24 N = 84

PAGE 113

113 Table 4 11 O rganizations implementing courses beyond a pre determined list Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In proce ss Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 3 5 8 1 5 6 College (n = 50) 37 6 43 6 1 7 Adult services (n = 5) 5 0 5 0 0 0 Other (n = 17) 2 2 4 11 0 11 Total 47 1 3 6 0 1 8 6 24 N = 84 Table 4 1 2 Prog rams implementing access to non credit courses. Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not imple menting H S (n = 22) 4 3 7 8 5 13 Adult (n = 31) 16 1 17 7 8 15 Both (n = 35) 13 6 19 9 6 15 Total 33 10 43 24 19 43 N = 86 Table 4 1 3 Program t ypes implementing access to non credit courses Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 1 0 1 3 4 7 Mixed model (n = 47) 15 8 23 15 8 23 Individualized (n = 31 ) 17 2 19 6 7 13 Tot al 33 10 43 24 19 43 N = 86

PAGE 114

114 Table 4 1 4 O rganizat ions implementing access to non credit courses. Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 2 1 3 6 4 10 College (n = 50) 21 7 28 10 13 23 Adult services (n = 5) 3 1 4 1 1 2 Other (n = 17) 7 1 8 7 1 8 Total 33 10 43 24 19 43 N = 86 Table 4 15 Prog rams implementing access to audi ted courses. Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 8 4 12 4 5 9 Adu lt (n = 31) 14 2 16 4 12 16 Both (n = 35) 12 9 21 9 4 13 Total 34 15 49 17 21 38 N = 87 Table 4 16 Program types implementing access to audited courses. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 0 1 1 3 4 7 Mixed model (n = 47) 14 11 25 12 9 21 Individualized (n = 31 ) 20 3 23 2 8 10 Total 34 15 49 17 21 38 N = 87

PAGE 115

115 Table 4 17 O rganizations implementing access to audited courses. Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing Schoo l district (n = 14) 2 3 5 5 4 9 College (n = 50) 21 10 31 7 12 19 Adult services (n = 5) 3 0 3 2 0 2 Other (n = 17) 8 2 10 3 4 7 Total 34 15 49 17 21 38 N = 87 Table 4 18 Prog rams implementing access to informal participation in college courses. Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 8 4 12 4 5 9 Adult (n = 31) 11 2 13 3 15 18 Both (n = 35) 14 7 21 5 8 13 Total 33 13 46 12 28 40 N = 86 Table 4 19 Program types implementing informal participation in college courses. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 0 1 1 3 4 7 Mixed model (n = 47) 16 11 27 8 10 18 Individualized (n = 31 ) 17 1 18 1 13 14 Total 33 13 46 12 27 39 N = 85

PAGE 116

116 Table 4 20 O rganizations implementing informal participation in college courses Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not impl ementing School district (n = 14) 2 5 7 4 2 6 College (n = 50) 19 6 25 6 19 25 Adult services (n = 5) 3 0 3 0 2 2 Other (n = 17) 8 2 10 2 4 6 Total 33 13 46 12 27 39 N = 85 Table 4 21 Programs implementing enrollment in credit bearing courses. Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 5 1 6 9 5 14 Adult (n = 31) 12 6 1 8 7 8 15 Both (n = 35) 12 6 18 10 5 15 Total 29 13 42 26 18 44 N = 86 Table 4 22 Program t ypes implementing enrollment in credit bearing courses. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully impleme nted (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 2 0 2 4 3 7 Mixed model (n = 47) 11 8 19 16 10 2 6 Individualized (n = 31 ) 16 5 21 6 5 11 Total 29 13 42 2 6 18 44 N = 86

PAGE 117

117 Table 4 23 O rgan izations implementing enrollment in credit courses. Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing School dis trict (n = 14) 1 0 1 7 6 13 College (n = 50) 21 10 31 11 8 19 Adult services (n = 5) 1 1 2 1 2 3 Other (n = 17) 6 2 8 7 2 9 Total 29 13 4 2 26 18 44 N = 86 Table 4 24 Programs implementing receipt of credit for courses. Implementi ng Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 4 1 5 7 9 16 Adult (n = 31) 10 5 15 7 9 16 Both (n = 35) 15 6 21 7 6 13 Total 29 12 41 21 24 45 N = 86 Table 4 25 Program types implementing receipt of credit for courses. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 2 0 2 4 2 6 Mixed model (n = 47) 16 6 22 10 13 23 Individualized (n = 31 ) 11 6 17 7 9 16 Total 29 12 41 21 24 45 N = 86

PAGE 118

118 Table 4 26 O rganizat ions implementing receipt of credit for courses. Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 1 0 1 5 8 13 College (n = 50) 21 8 28 1 1 10 21 Adult services (n = 5) 2 1 3 0 2 2 Other (n = 17) 5 3 8 5 4 9 Total 29 12 41 21 24 45 N = 86 Tabl e 4 27 Programs implementing courses aligned with postsecondary plans. Implementing Not imp lementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 13 1 14 5 2 7 Adult (n = 31) 20 6 26 2 3 5 Both (n = 35) 22 11 33 2 0 2 Total 55 18 73 9 5 14 N = 87 Table 4 28 Program types implementing courses aligned with postsecondary plans. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero current students (N) No plans to implement Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 3 3 6 2 1 3 Mixed model (n = 47) 28 10 38 5 2 7 Individualized (n = 31 ) 23 5 28 2 2 4 Total 54 18 72 9 5 14 N = 86

PAGE 119

119 Table 4 29 O rganizations implementing courses aligned with postsec ondary plans. Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 5 2 7 5 2 7 College (n = 50) 39 7 46 2 2 4 Adult services (n = 5) 2 2 4 1 0 1 Other (n = 17) 8 7 15 1 1 2 Total 54 18 72 9 5 14 N = 86 Table 4 30 Prog rams implementing alignment with personal, academic, and career goals. Impleme nting Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 10 3 13 5 1 6 Adult (n = 31) 26 4 3 0 1 0 1 Both (n = 35) 27 7 3 4 0 1 1 Tota l 6 3 1 4 77 6 2 8 N = 85 Table 4 31 Pro gram types implementing alignment with personal, academic, and career goals. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total impleme nting (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 6 0 6 1 1 2 Mixed model (n = 47) 31 10 41 5 0 5 Individualized (n = 31 ) 26 4 30 0 0 0 Total 63 14 77 6 1 7 N = 84

PAGE 120

120 Table 4 32 O rganizati ons implementing alignment with personal, academic, and career goals. Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14 ) 5 4 9 2 1 3 College (n = 50) 46 3 49 2 0 2 Adult services (n = 5) 2 2 4 1 0 1 Other (n = 17) 10 5 15 1 1 2 Total 63 14 77 6 2 8 N = 85 Table 4 33 Programs implemen ting person centered planning. Implementin g Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 17 3 20 1 0 1 Adult (n = 31) 22 3 25 3 3 6 Both (n = 35) 25 6 31 2 1 3 Total 6 4 12 76 6 4 10 N = 86 Table 4 34 Program types implementing person centered planning. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total n ot implementing Separate (n = 9) 3 2 5 1 1 2 Mixed model (n = 47) 35 7 42 2 1 3 Individualized (n = 31 ) 25 3 28 3 2 5 Total 63 12 75 6 4 10 N = 85

PAGE 121

121 Table 4 35 O rganizations implementing person centered planning. Implementin g Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 11 1 12 0 0 0 College (n = 50) 35 8 43 5 2 7 Adult services (n = 5) 4 0 4 0 1 1 Other (n = 17) 14 2 16 0 1 1 Total 64 11 75 5 4 9 N = 84 Table 4 36 Programs implementing modification of testing policies. Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) F ully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 4 4 8 6 6 12 Adult (n = 31) 15 2 17 3 11 14 Both (n = 35) 8 4 12 8 13 21 Total 27 10 37 17 30 47 N = 84 Table 4 37 Program ty pes implementing modification of testing policies. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing Separa te (n = 9) 2 0 2 1 3 4 Mixed model (n = 47) 10 7 17 12 16 28 Individualized (n = 31 ) 15 3 18 4 10 14 Total 27 10 37 17 29 46 N = 83

PAGE 122

122 Table 4 38 O rganizations implementing modification of testing policies. Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 2 2 4 5 4 9 College (n = 50) 20 3 23 7 19 26 Adult services (n = 5) 2 2 4 0 1 1 Other (n = 17) 3 3 6 5 6 11 Total 27 10 37 17 30 47 N = 84 Table 4 39 Programs implementing modification of prerequisite policies. Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implem ented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 2 5 7 8 5 13 Adult (n = 31) 13 2 15 6 10 16 Both (n = 35) 10 3 13 9 11 20 Total 25 10 35 23 26 49 N = 84 Table 4 40 Program types impleme nting modification of prerequisite policie s. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 3 0 3 2 2 4 Mixed model (n = 47) 10 5 15 15 15 30 Individualized (n = 31 ) 12 5 17 6 9 15 Total 25 10 35 23 26 49 N = 84

PAGE 123

123 Table 4 41 O rganizations implementing modification of prerequisite policie s Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 1 1 2 7 4 11 College (n = 50) 18 7 25 9 15 24 Adult services (n = 5) 3 0 3 1 1 2 Other (n = 17) 3 2 5 6 6 12 Total 25 10 35 23 26 49 N = 84 Table 4 42 Pro grams implementing accommodations through the DS O Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) I n process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 6 0 6 11 3 14 Adult (n = 31) 21 3 24 3 3 6 Both (n = 35) 20 6 26 3 4 7 Total 47 9 56 17 10 27 N = 83 Table 4 43 Program types implementing accommo dations through the DSO. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 4 1 5 2 0 2 Mixed model (n = 47) 24 1 25 13 7 20 Individualized (n = 31 ) 19 7 26 2 3 5 Total 47 9 56 17 10 27 N = 83

PAGE 124

124 Table 4 44. O rganizations implementing accommodations through the DSO Implementing Not implementing Type organiz ation (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 1 1 2 7 5 12 College (n = 50) 3 7 3 40 3 4 7 Adult services (n = 5) 3 1 4 1 0 1 Other (n = 17) 8 2 1 0 6 1 7 T otal 4 9 7 56 1 7 10 27 N = 83 Table 4 45 Programs implementing access to needed technology. Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zer o students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 18 0 18 0 0 0 Adult (n = 31) 24 4 28 1 1 2 Both (n = 35) 32 2 34 0 0 0 Total 74 9 83 1 1 2 N = 85 Table 4 46 Program types implementing access to needed technology. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans t Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 3 4 7 0 1 1 Mixed model (n = 47) 42 1 43 1 0 1 Individu alized (n = 31 ) 29 3 32 0 0 0 Total 74 8 82 1 1 2 N = 84

PAGE 125

125 Table 4 47 O rganizations implementing access to needed technology Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 10 4 14 0 0 0 College (n = 50) 4 4 3 4 7 1 1 2 Adult services (n = 5) 5 0 5 0 0 0 Other (n = 17) 15 2 17 0 0 0 Total 7 4 9 8 3 1 1 2 N = 85 Table 4 48 Progr ams implementing technology instruction for students. Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 18 2 20 0 0 0 Adult (n = 31) 24 5 29 1 1 2 Both (n = 35) 30 2 32 1 0 1 Total 72 9 81 2 1 3 N = 84 Table 4 49 Program types implementing technology instruction for students. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero current students (N) No plans to implement Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 4 2 6 1 1 2 Mixed model (n = 47) 41 2 43 1 0 1 Individualized (n = 31 ) 27 5 32 0 0 0 Tota l 72 9 81 2 1 3 N = 84

PAGE 126

126 Table 4 50 O rganizations implementing technology instruction for students Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero st udents (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 11 2 13 0 0 0 College (n = 50) 43 4 47 2 1 3 Adult services (n = 5) 4 0 4 0 0 0 Other (n = 17) 14 3 17 0 0 0 Total 72 9 81 2 1 3 N = 84 Table 4 51 Programs implementing UDL tra ining for faculty Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 4 3 7 9 2 11 Adult (n = 31) 1 4 9 2 3 6 3 9 Both (n = 35) 9 17 26 6 2 8 Total 27 2 9 56 21 7 28 N = 84 Table 4 52 Program types implementing UDL training for faculty Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Ful ly implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero current students (N) No plans to implement Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 2 3 5 4 0 4 Mixed model (n = 47) 9 11 20 16 7 23 Individualized (n = 31 ) 16 1 5 3 1 1 0 1 Total 27 2 9 56 2 1 7 2 8 N = 84

PAGE 127

127 Table 4 53 Administrative organizations implementing UDL training for faculty Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero professors (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 3 2 5 7 1 8 College (n = 50) 19 17 3 6 8 4 12 Adult services (n = 5) 1 3 4 1 0 1 Other (n = 17) 4 7 11 5 1 6 Total 27 29 56 21 6 27 N = 83 Table 4 54 Programs implementing access to peer s upports Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 15 2 17 2 0 2 Adult (n = 31) 24 2 26 2 3 5 Both (n = 35) 28 3 31 2 1 3 Total 67 7 74 6 4 10 N = 84 Table 4 55 Program types implementing access to peer supports. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implem ented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 3 0 3 3 1 4 Mixed model (n = 47) 37 4 41 3 1 4 Individualized (n = 31 ) 27 3 30 0 2 2 Total 67 7 74 6 4 10 N = 84

PAGE 128

128 Table 4 56 O rganiza tions implementing access to peer supports Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 9 2 11 1 0 1 College (n = 50) 39 3 42 5 3 8 Adult services (n = 5) 5 0 5 0 0 0 Other (n = 17) 14 2 16 0 1 1 Total 67 7 74 6 4 10 N = 84 Table 4 57 Programs implementing access to paid educational coaches. Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 16 1 17 0 3 3 Adult (n = 31) 19 3 22 1 6 7 Both (n = 35) 18 4 22 3 8 11 Total 53 8 61 4 17 21 N = 82 Table 4 58 Program types implementing access to paid educational coaches. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total impl ementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 4 1 5 1 2 3 Mixed model (n = 47) 27 4 31 3 9 12 Individualized (n = 3 1 ) 22 3 25 0 6 6 Total 53 8 61 4 17 21 N = 82

PAGE 129

129 Table 4 59 O rganizations implementing paid educati onal coaches Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 9 1 10 0 3 3 College (n = 50) 30 6 36 2 10 12 Adult services (n = 5) 4 1 5 0 0 0 Other (n = 17) 10 0 10 2 4 6 Total 5 3 8 6 1 4 17 21 N = 82 Table 4 60 Program s implementing access to needed transportation. Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 18 1 19 1 0 1 Adult (n = 31) 30 1 31 0 0 0 Both (n = 35) 31 2 33 1 0 1 Total 79 4 83 2 0 2 N = 85 Table 4 61 Program types implementing access to needed transportation. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero current students (N) No plans to implement Total not implementing Separate (n = 9) 8 0 8 0 0 0 Mixed model (n = 47) 42 1 43 2 0 2 Individualized (n = 31 ) 29 3 32 0 0 0 Total 79 4 83 2 0 2 N = 85

PAGE 130

130 Table 4 62 O rganization s implementing access to needed transportati on Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero professors (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 11 1 12 1 0 1 College (n = 5 0) 48 2 50 0 0 0 Adult services (n = 5) 4 0 4 1 0 1 Other (n = 17) 15 1 16 0 0 0 Total 78 4 82 2 0 2 N = 84 Table 4 63 Programs implementing transportation instruction for stu dents Implementing Not implementing Type Students (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total not implementing H S (n = 22) 18 1 19 1 0 1 Adult (n = 31) 25 3 28 1 2 3 Both (n = 35) 28 4 32 1 1 2 Total 71 8 79 3 3 6 N = 85 Table 4 64 Program types implementing transportation instruction for students. Implementing Not implementing Type Program (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero students (N) No plans Total no t implementing Separate (n = 9) 6 2 8 1 1 2 Mixed model (n = 47) 3 9 3 4 2 1 1 3 Individualized (n = 31 ) 25 3 28 1 1 2 Total 70 8 78 3 3 6 N = 84

PAGE 131

131 Table 4 65 O rganizations implementing transportation instruction for students Implementing Not implementing Type organization (N) Fully implemented (N) In process Total implementing (N) Zero student s (N) No plans Total not implementing School district (n = 14) 11 1 12 1 0 1 College (n = 50) 41 6 47 0 3 3 Adult servi ces (n = 5) 3 0 3 2 0 2 Other (n = 17) 16 1 17 0 0 0 Total 71 8 79 3 3 6 N = 85 Table 4 6 6 Observed and expected frequencies: Implementing access to existing courses Implementation Frequencies High school Adult students Both groups Implementing Obse rved 11 .0 27 .0 30 .0 Expected 15.8 25.3 26.9 Not implementing Observed 9 .0 5 .0 4 .0 Expected 4.2 6.7 7.1 Total Observed 20 .0 32 .0 34 .0 Expected 20 .0 32 .0 34 .0 Table 4 67 Relationship between type students and access to existing courses Access to existing courses Type students served Value df Significance Chi square 9.272 2 .010 328 .010 Table 4 68 Observed and expected frequencies: Implementing courses beyond a list Implementation Fr equencies High school Adult students Both groups Implementing Observed 10 .0 24 .0 26 .0 Expected 14.8 21.9 23.3 Not implementing Observed 11 .0 7 .0 7 .0 Expected 6.2 9.1 9.7 Total Observed 21 .0 31 .0 33 .0 Expected 21 .0 31 .0 33 .0

PAGE 132

132 Table 4 69 Relati onship between type of students and access to courses beyond a list Courses beyond a pre determined list Type students served Value df Significance Chi square 7.102 2 .029 .289 .029 Table 4 70 O bserved and expected frequencies: Implementing credit for courses Implementation Frequencies High school Adult students Both groups Implementing Observed 5 .0 15 .0 21 .0 Expected 10.0 14.8 16.2 Not implementing Observed 16 .0 16 .0 13 .0 Expected 11.0 16.2 17.8 Total Observed 21 .0 31 .0 34 .0 Expected 21 .0 31 .0 34 .0 Table 4 71 Relationship between type of students and credit for courses. Credit for courses Type students served Value df Significance Chi squ are 7.507 2 .023 .295 .023 Table 4 72 Observed and expected frequencies: Accommodations through the DSO Implementation Frequencies High school Adult students Both group s Implementing Observed 6 .0 24 .0 26 .0 Expected 13.5 20.2 22.3 N ot implementing Observed 14 .0 6 .0 7 .0 Expected 6.5 9.8 10.7 Total Observed 20 .0 30 .0 33 .0 Expected 20 .0 30 .0 33 .0 Table 4 73 Relationship between type of students and accommodations through the DSO. Accommodations through DSO Type students served Value df Significance Chi square 16.866 2 .0002 .451 .0002

PAGE 133

133 Table 4 74 Observed and expected frequencies: UDL training for professors Implementation Frequencies High school Adul t students Both group s Implementing Observed 7 .0 23 .0 26 .0 Expected 12.0 21.3 22.7 Not implementing Observed 11 .0 9 .0 8 .0 Expected 6.0 10.7 11.3 Total Observed 18 .0 32 .0 34 .0 Expected 18.0 32.0 34 .0 Table 4 75 Relationship between type of students and UDL training for professors. UDL training for professors Type students served Value df Significance Chi square 8.111 2 .017 .311 .017 Table 4 76. Observed and expected frequencies: Access to existing courses. Implementation Frequencies Individualized Mixed model Separate Implementing Observed 27 .0 37 .0 4 .0 Expected 2 3.7 3 7.2 7.1 Not implementing Observed 3 .0 10 .0 5 .0 Expected 6.3 9.8 1.9 Total Observed 30.0 4 7 .0 9 .0 E xpected 30.0 47 .0 9 .0 Table 4 77 Relationship between type of program and access to existing courses. Access to existing courses Type program Value df Significance Chi square 8.689 2 .0 13 318 .0 13 Table 4 78 Observed and expected frequencies: Courses beyond a pre determined list Implementation Frequencies Individualized Mixed model Separate Implementing Observed 28 .0 30 .0 2 .0 Expected 2 1.4 32. 9 5. 7 Not implementing Observed 2 .0 16 .0 6 .0 Expected 8.6 1 3.1 2.3 Total Observed 30 .0 4 6 .0 8 .0 Expected 30.0 46 .0 8 .0 Table 4 79 Relationship between type of program and access to courses beyond a list. Courses beyond a predetermined list Type progr am Value df Significance Chi square 16 373 2 .00 0 441 .00 0

PAGE 134

13 4 Table 4 80 Observed and expected frequencies: Accommodations through the DSO Implementation Frequencies District College Other Implementing Observed 2 .0 40 .0 14 .0 Expec ted 9.4 3 1.7 1 4.8 Not implementing Observed 12 .0 7 .0 8 .0 Expected 4.6 1 5.3 7. 2 Total Observed 14 .0 47 .0 22 .0 Expected 14 .0 47.0 22 .0 Table 4 81 R elationship between type of organization and accommodations through the DSO. Accommodations through DSO Type organization Value df Significance Chi square 24 851 2 .000 .5 47 .000 Table 4 82 Observed and expected frequencies: UDL training for faculty Implementation Frequencies District College Other Implementing Observed 5 .0 36 .0 15 .0 Expected 8.8 33.1 14.2 Not implementing Observed 8 .0 12 .0 7 .0 Expected 4.2 15.9 6.8 Total Observed 13 .0 48 .0 22 .0 Expected 13.0 48.0 22.0 Table 4 83 Relationship betwee n type of organization and UDL training for faculty UDL training for professors Type organization Value df Significance Chi square 6.229 2 .044 .274 .044

PAGE 135

135 Table 4 84 Observed and expected freque ncies: Enrollment in credit courses Implementation Frequencies District College Other Implementing Observed 1 .0 31 .0 10 .0 Expected 6.8 24.4 10.7 Not implementing Observed 13 .0 19 .0 12 .0 Expected 7.2 25.6 11.3 Total Observed 14 .0 50 .0 22 .0 Exp ected 14.0 50.0 22.0 Table 4 85 Relationship between type of organization and enrollment in credit courses. Enrollment in credit courses Type organization Value df Significance Chi square 13 .308 2 .001 .393 .001 Table 4 86 Observed and expected frequencies: Receipt of credit for courses Implementation Frequencies District College Other Implementing Observed 1 .0 28 .0 11 .0 Expected 6.6 23.1 10.4 Not implementing Observed 13 .0 21 0 11 .0 Expected 7.4 25.9 11.6 Total Observed 14 .0 49 .0 22 .0 Expected 14.0 49.0 22.0 Table 4 87 Relationship between typ e of organization and receipt of credit for courses. Completion of credit course s Type organization Value df Significance Chi square 12.308 2 .002 .378 .002

PAGE 136

136 Table 4 88 Implementation of benchmarks by all programs Benchmarks CTP (n = 4 ) TPSID (n = 9) CTP + TPSID (n = 9) Total federally approved programs Total all programs Access to transportation 4 9 9 22 83 Access to technology 3 9 9 21 83 Technolog y instruction 3 9 9 21 81 Transportation instruction 4 9 9 22 79 Courses aligned with student goals 4 9 9 22 77 Person centered planning 3 9 9 21 76 Peer supports 4 9 8 21 74 Aligned with plans 3 9 9 21 73 Access to existing courses 3 9 9 21 71 Acce ss to courses beyond a list 3 9 9 21 69 Educational coaches 2 8 7 17 61 Accommodations through DSO 3 8 8 22 58 UDL training 2 7 8 17 56 Audited courses 2 8 4 14 49 Informal participation 3 4 5 12 46 Noncredit courses 2 3 8 13 43 Enrollment for credi t 2 6 7 15 42 Receipt of credit 0 6 7 13 41 Testing modified 4 3 4 11 37 Prerequisites modified 4 5 3 12 35 Total 58 148 150 359 1234

PAGE 137

137 Figure 4 1 Ranked frequency of implementation: Benchmarks related to course access.

PAGE 138

138 Figure 4 2 Ranked frequency of implementation: Address issues that impact participation

PAGE 139

139 Figure 4 3 Mean number of benchmarks implemented

PAGE 140

140 Figure 4 4. Mean number of benchmarks implemented by CTPs and TPSIDs.

PAGE 141

141 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Purpose of This Study The purpose of this study was to use the Think College Standards as a frame of reference to reveal the current state of practice in the field of i nclusive higher education, as well as to assess progress toward the first Think College Standard Inclusive Academic Access. The cumulative legislative and policy changes that have enabled students with intellectual disabilities (ID) to attend college pa rticularly the requirements of the Higher Education Op portunity Act of 2008 (P. L. 110 315 ), should promote the implementation of the benchmarks established by the national coordinating center. This study presents the self reported implementation of inclu sive academic access by college programs serving students with ID. The specific question of whether certain program characteristics predicted the implementation of inclusive academic access benchmarks was examined in this study. The null hypothesis of the study was tested at a .05 level of significance: For this study, the null hypothesis being tested was that l evel s of implementation of Think College benchmarks are independent of the categories of program characteristics that describe transition postsecon dary programs included in the Think College database. The alternative hypothesis being tested was that certain program characteristics do predict the implementation of specific benchmarks. Summary and Discussion of Findings This study addressed three rese arch questions: (1) which of the practices promoted by the Think College Benchmarks appear to be most prevalent across the programs identifie d to the Think College database; (2) do any program characteristics predict the implementation of more or fewer ben chmarks ; and (3) which specific program characteristics predict the implementation of particular Benchmarks? T o address these research questions, a survey on the implementation

PAGE 142

142 of inclusive academic access benchmarks was disseminated to 197 college progra ms serving students with intellectual disabilities (ID) throughout the United States. The interpretation of these findings include s the following components E ach inclusive academic access benchmark is discussed in t erms of its reported prevalence of impl ementation by responding programs. T he state of practice revealed by these findings is d iscussed. Comparisons are made between the findings of the current study and those of previous surveys of college programs serving students with ID (Grigal, Hart, & W eir, 2012; Papay & Bambara, 2011). T he evidence of progress toward the inclusive academic access standard is discussed. Additionally, the question of whether contextual factors are limiting what programs have to offer has been raised in the recent litera ture on postsecondary education for students with ID ( McEat hron & Beuhring, 2011 ). A discussion of the relationships between program characteristics and inclusive academics revealed by this study will be discussed. Finally, this chapter concludes with a discussion of the theoretical implications of the research findings and recommendations for future research and practice. Implementation of Think College Standard One: Inclusive Academic Access Access to N eed ed Transportation and Transportation I nstructio n Reported access to neede d transportation reflects positively on the state of practice in the field of inclusive higher education. Access to needed transportation is required by IDEA 2004 for students with disabilities. However, access to needed transpo rtation and transportation instruction were reported by programs serving adul t students and mixed program s just as frequently as by programs serving IDEA eligible high school students. Additionally, programs administered by colleges and universities repor ted slightly better access to transportation and transportation instruction than programs administered by school districts. Whether or not the

PAGE 143

143 IDEA mandate was applicable, responding postsecondary transition programs reported that the transportation needs of their students with ID were addressed Access to Needed T echnology As discussed in the introductory chapter, the technology needs of students with disabilities are protected not only by IDEA 2004 but also by the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans wit h Disabilities. Nevertheless, lack of access to appropriate or adequate technology has often been described in the literature on secondary and postsecondary education for students with disabilities, and has also been debated in case law (Katsiyann is et al ., 2009). Grigal, Hart, and Weir (2012) found, in their 2009 study, that college programs serving students with intellectual disabilities were receiving accommodations that included accessible texts, e readers, screen enlargers, screen readers, laptops, F M listening devices, and reading/writing software. An earlier study (Zafft, Hart, & Zimbrich, 2004) found that the accommodations of students with disabilities rarely included assistive technology (AT) as an academic support, in spite of the wide availab ility of AT in college settings. A broad range of accommodations, including assistive technology, and universal design strategies, was recommended by the authors as a promising practice for creating greater access to the general curriculum in the college setting. F ind ings of the current survey suggest that technology is being well implemented for students with ID. Broad implementation of access to needed technology and instruction in the use of technology were reported across programs serving high school adult, and mixed age students. Broad access to technology and technology instruction were also reported by programs administered by all types of organizations: school districts, colleges and universities, adult services agencies, and other organizations Full implementation of access to technology and technology instruction were reported less frequently by substantially separate programs than by

PAGE 144

144 mixed model or inclusive individualized support programs. However, technology access and instruction were im plemented, with at least some students, across the majority of programs. Alignment of Courses with Individualized G oals Previous literature has described wide variability in the curricula available through programs for students with ID. Papay and Bambar a (2011) found that the majority of classes taken for credit were vocational or remedial classes. More academically proficient students were likely to be taking classes in which they had the skills to participate or that matched their transition goals. T he majority of classes taken informally or audited were academic, health and fitness, and arts classes. Less academically able students were likely to be taking classes based on what is available to students in the pr ogram (i.e., the pre determined list). The findings of the current study suggest an improved emphasis on student centered and outcome oriented programming for postsecondary students with intellectual disabilities (ID). The majority of responding programs indicated that their students with ID were participating in programs indicated that students with ID were participating in person centered planning. These three related benchmarks certainly represent an improvement over course selection based upon the pre determined list. They also reflect appropriate focus on self determined post school outcomes and ind ividualized educational, vocational, and independent living goals. Under the I ndividuals with D isabilities Educ ation Act (IDEA) of 2004 (P.L. 108 446 ), such focus is required when developing individualized education plans (IEPs) for transition aged studen ts with disabilities receiving special education services. However, these practices were reported just as frequently by responding college programs that serve d adult students or mixed program s as they were implemented by programs serving high school stude nts with IDEA

PAGE 145

145 eligibility. Even though many postsecondary students with ID no longer had individualized education plans (IEPs), transition postsecondary programs reported continuing these transition best practices. Access to E xisting C ollege C ourses Coll ege coursework is the primary focus of all higher education programs for students without disabilities. College students without disabilities also have access to a wide variety of courses, populated by a wide variety of students. Postsecondary programs f or students with ID have not previously reflected the typical college experience. In 2003, community based transition programs identified in 29 states included 48 programs at postsecondary institutions (Gaumer, Morningstar, & Clark, 2004). According to the Transition Coalition, the purposes of these programs were intensive transition experiences in real life settings. In a 2008 survey of 52 programs, which served students with ID and provided access to the campus of a postsecondary institution (Papay & Bambara, 2011), researchers found that the most frequently stated purpose of being on a college campus was for employment or opportunities for vocational training (90% of all programs). A 2009 survey of 149 U.S. postsecondary education programs for stude nts with ID (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012) found that independent living skills and employment were both rated as the primary goal at twice the frequency of academics. Previous studies have revealed that college programs for students with intell ectual disabilities (ID) were comprised primarily of separate instructional programs for students with ID. In the 2009 online survey (Grigal, Hart & Weir, 2012) 68% of respondents indica ted that at least half of the instruction to students with ID was p rovided only with other students with ID. Papay and Bambara (2011) wondered if we might more accurately refer to programs based on college campuses as employment programs based in age appropriate settings rather than as postsecondary education programs (p. 90) Their 2008 survey of college based transition

PAGE 146

146 programs for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities found that less than one quarter (23.7%) of all students with ID enrolled in 52 programs were taking college classes. Access to courses populated by students without disabilities is a key mandate of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. F indings of the present study show that access to inclusive classes, taken alongside students without disabilities, has improved. More t han three quarters of respondents reported access to existing college courses, and well over half of the responding programs had implemented access to existing courses with at least one qu arter of their students. Most of the programs implementing access t o existing courses also reported that students with ID had access to courses that was not limited to a pre determined list. Access to inclusive classes enables students with ID to have a college experience similar to that of typical college students, rath er than participation in a special program located on a higher education campus. While access to existing courses was not the most prevalent practice across responding pro grams (Figure 4 1 ), access to existing, inclusive classes has been implemented by th e majority of responding programs. C ollege c ourse access has improved for students with ID in these postsecondary programs. Options for Access to College C ourses The current survey found that a majority of responding college programs offer access to colle ge courses including credit clas ses Reported a ccess to college courses and an array of options for access reflect positively on the state of practice in inclusive higher education. The majority of responding programs indicated that students with ID were particip ating in college coursework, and most responding programs indicated that students with ID had multiple options for accessing college courses attended by students without disabilities Responding programs indicated that students with ID were audit ing college classes, participating informally in college classes, enrolled in noncredit courses, enrolled in credit bearing courses, and receiving credit for

PAGE 147

147 completing college courses. An array of options suggests that a broad variety of needs and prefer ences may be addressed. The possibility of addressing more significant levels of need is also suggested by the variety of access options. Reported completion of credit bearing courses also indicates that students can be fully engaged in college coursewor k among their peers without disabilities. T he literature has described a wide variety of methods and approaches to postsecondary education for students with ID Papay and Bambara (2011) found that students with higher academic ability levels were those m ost likely to be auditing or enrolled in classes for credit. Students with lower academic abilities were more likely to be participating informally. Findings of the current survey suggest that a wide variety of options continues to be available. A conti nuum of current access options enables transition postsecondary programs for students with ID to address a variety of student profiles. Access to audited college courses was the most frequently reported option across responding programs (n = 49) Among t he options for access, informal participation in college courses ranked second in implementation prevalence (n = 46). Access to noncredit courses was reported by 43 responding programs. Enrollment in credit bearing courses (n = 42) and receipt of credi t for courses (n = 41) ranke d just behind access to non credit courses. The small range of implementation frequencies suggests that responding programs are using a variety of strategies for implementing inclusive higher education for students with ID, rath er than a one size fits all approach. Creative implementation of multiple access options might include allowing students with ID to first audit a course, and become familiar with content, then take the same course for credit (Hart et al. 2010). Such solu tions would enable more students with ID to benefit from inclusion in college classes and also improve the attainment of credit for college coursework.

PAGE 148

148 Access to Educational C oaches Educational coaches have been reported in the literature on postsecondary education for st udents with disabilities as an accommodation needed by many students with intellectual disabilities that is not required by IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, or the ADA (Zafft, Hart, & Zimbrich, 2004; Zafft, 2006). Zafft et al. (2004) describe d educational coaches as a service utilized by 68% of students with ID they interviewed. While many colleges make tutoring and similar services available to students with and without disabilities, paid educational coaches for students with ID are often th e financial responsibility of families and outside agencies rather than the institutions of higher education. Consequently, low access to paid educational coaches might be expected across responding transition postsecondary programs. Surprisingly, access to paid educational coaches was reportedly available in almost three quarters of responding programs. Programs administered by adult services agencies reported the highest rate of implementation of educational coaches, which may reflect the funding source s of these agencies, rather than the funding streams common to colleges and universities. Nevertheless, 60% of transition postsecondary programs administered by institutes of higher education did report full access to educational coaches. T he b road avail ability of technology bodes well for the meaningful participation of students with ID in inclusive higher education. Peer supports, such as mentors and tutors, were reportedly available in a larger proportion of responding programs than educational coach es. Almost three quarters of responding programs reported access to peers supports for their students with ID. Peer supports do not appear to represent a cheaper alternative to paid educational coaches, since more than half of programs reporting peer sup ports also indicate that students have access to educational coaches.

PAGE 149

149 Accommodations through the Disability Services Office Responding programs have indicated implementation of a variety of supports not traditionally available to students with disabilities in the college setting. Responses to this survey indicate that students with ID, in many re sponding college programs, have access to the Disability Services Office (DSO) for accommodations typically provided through that office. These accommodations migh t include some technology, as well as preferential seating, extra time on tests, note takers, scribes, and other important supports. The lowest rates of access to accommodations through the DSO were reported by programs serving only high school students a nd programs administered by school districts. UDL Training for F aculty Zafft and colleagues (2004) recommended use of both assistive technology ( AT ) and univ ersal design for learning (UDL) practices for increasing curricular access in college settings. Un iversal design approaches include multiple means of access to curriculum, engagement in curriculum, and response to curriculum in instructional design. Universally designed lessons can involve the use of technology, including AT, quite effectively ( Ouelle t, 2004 ). Both AT and UDL, implemented in conjunction, can certainly increase access to curric ulum more effectively than either practice alone. However, technology and technology instruction have become much more consistent ly available across programs than facult y training in UDL principles. While mixed model programs reported strong implementation, o nly programs with inclusive individualized support models reported 100% implementation of UDL training for professors and instructors serving students wit h ID. Reported implement ation ranged widely across the remaining programs. Those p rograms serving only high school students and programs administered by school districts reported the lowest levels of faculty training in UDL among responding programs. Si nce the Higher Education Opportunity Act

PAGE 150

150 ( HEOA, 2008) increased the requirement for students with ID to participate in college courses among peers withou t disabilities, improved implementation of UDL training for professors and instructors will enable inst itutions to serve students with ID more effectively Modification of P olicies to Enable Course Participation by S tudents with ID Limited access to college courses, because of required testing and prerequisites, has been reported in the literature on postse condary education for students with I D (Causton Theoharris, Ashby, & Declouette, 2009) If course access requires minimum test scores students with ID may only be able to access courses through audit or other alternatives to regular registration for cre dit courses. These alternatives may limit access to courses that are not filled during regular registration. When many courses require the completion of prerequisites, students with ID may be limited to first level courses and not have access to the full range of fields of study (Causton Theoharris Ashby, & Declouette, 2009 ). For example, students with ID who are unable to complete an introductory art class may not have access to a photography class related to his or her career goals. Less than half of responding programs indicated that college policies on testing or prerequisites had been modified to permit courses access by students with ID. However, it is possible that students in many transition postsecondary programs are able to access their course s without modification of college policies. The findings of this survey have indicated that students with ID do have considerable access to college courses, including credit courses. Some programs have actually developed, or are in the process of develop ing, certificate programs available to their students with ID (Carroll Blumberg, & Petroff, 2008 ).

PAGE 151

151 Prevalence of P ractices Implementation of Benchmarks by All P rograms A practice is likely to become prevalent if it is both important to a program and re latively easy to implement. The benchmark s with implementation reported most fr equently across all programs were access to needed transportation and access to needed technology It is easy to understand why transportation would be considered important to implement by postsecondary programs. College programs would only be mandated to include transportation for students, still receiving special education services under IDEA (2004), IEP s included specialized transportation as a necessary se rvice. However, administrators could assure much better enrollment and attendance for their college programs by providing access to needed transportation. Instruction in the use of needed transportation would further ensure enrollment and attendance, and learning to use needed transportation would be considered an important independent living skill for students with ID to acquire. Access to technology was implemented with the same frequency as access to transportation. Since technology has become so pr evalent particularly across educational and work environments, it is easy to understand the prevalence of practices related to technology. Technology might be considered important because it provides types of access that would otherwise require one to on e assistance. And technology is often not difficult to implement for students with disabilities. Programs might have students accessing technology as an accommodation through the Disability Services Office and/or acquiring personal technology through sta te Tech Act programs, Medicaid waiver funds, or a variety of other funding sources. Technology instruction might be provided by personnel of the program itself, by staff of the Disability Services Office, or by providers from other disability services pro grams. Students with ID and other disabilities may access needed technology and technology instruction through

PAGE 152

152 Services, and other related services professionals. Access to transportation, technology, and instruction for students with ID in both areas were the participation issues addressed most frequently by responding college programs. Left unaddressed, these can represent significant barriers to participation for students and families. It seems likely that programs which fail to address transportation and technology issues would attract fewer students and risk their own sustainability. While transportation and technology practices do address issues that may impact the participation of studen ts with ID in college they do not necessarily provide access to courses. Survey respondents report ed ensuring access to their programs more frequently than they report e d access to college coursework. T he most freque ntly implemented benchmarks related to course access were : alignment of courses with each studen personal, academic, and career goals ; person centered planning ; postsecondary plans. While these benchmarks reflect indivi dualized and student driven planning they do not necessarily provid e access to existing courses populated by students without disabilities. Therefore, the pr actices most frequently repor ted by college programs serving students with ID do not ensure inclu sive academic access. Access to existing college courses was reported by more than two thirds of programs, and all methods of course access were implemented at similar levels. However, attainment of credit was the least prevalent type of course access r eported by responding programs. All options for course access involve some level of attention to college policies, but completion of courses and attainment of credit would require modifica ti on or adjustment of more policie s than other means of access. E n rollment in and completion of credit courses may be implemented less frequently

PAGE 153

153 than other types of c ollege course access because tho se practices are perceived as difficult to implement. The levels of implementation for educational coaches and peer supp orts are impressive across program categorie s. These practices should contribute to t he usability of trans ition postsecondary programs for students with ID. While paid educational coaches are not an ce would typically provide, other resources may be tapped to fund these services. Peer tutors, peer mentors, or a variety of other supports may be provided sometimes in place of educational coaches. These support roles may be filled by volunteers, classm ates, students in practicum experiences, graduate assistants, and/or students in work study positions. Peer supports may be seen as similar in importance to educational coaches and would be considered easier to implement by most programs. It is unsurp rising that the benchmarks least frequently implemented across programs are those that require the most agreement, collaboration, and coope ration among branches of the college outside the transition postsecondary program. In order for students with ID to access many college courses outside a specialized program, modification of testing and/or course prerequisites would need to be considered. De spite the importance of these practices they would not be considered easy to implement. Modification or adjustm e nt of testing (n = 37) and prerequisite policies (n = 35) were implemented by fewer responding programs than any other benchmarks (Figure 5 1) Prevalence of Practices Across Program C ategories Mixed p ro grams serving students of both high school and adul t age group s reported the highest implementation of benchmarks across categories. The need to implement an array of options may reflect the diverse needs of students across a range of ages. The report by one respondent that their program for high school students was administered by a school district

PAGE 154

154 while their program for adult students was administered by an adult services agency suggests that each student group may require its own continuum of options. While implementing such a continuum of options ma y not be considered easy, it would certainly be considered important to mixed programs serving both high school and adult students The fact that programs administered by colleges and universities r eported implementing many benchmarks is unsurprising. Wor king within their own administrative structures, college administered programs seem more likely to acquire approval and support for their programs than outside organizations locating their programs on higher education campuses. This may account not only f or the higher mean implementation of benchmarks by college administered programs but also for the fact that more than half of re sponding programs were college administered. College insiders would probably find most of these benchmarks easier to implement than their counterparts from school districts, adult services agencies, and other organizations outside the college. It is interesting to note that mixed programs and college administered programs were both characteristics associated with implementation o f slightly more benchmarks than federal approval as a comprehensive transition postsecondary (CTP) program (Figure 5 2) Programs administered by adult services agencies reported a mean implementation of 15 benchmarks. It is difficult to generalize this f inding to all college programs administered by adult services agencies, because the number of responding programs was small (n = 5). However, adult services agencies may bring various funding streams, types of expertise and other resources that enhance t he programs they administer. The Grigal, Hart, and Weir (2009) survey found that a majority of programs reported two or more sources to fund tuition and services for students. The resources that adult services agencies access to fund and serve their coll ege programs deserve further exploration.

PAGE 155

155 category difficult to interpret. The high implementation by five private foundations and nonprofit agencies may suggest th at the infusion of outside financial resources contributes to the success of these programs. The nine other organizations described as partnerships or collaboratives may also bring a greater volume of resources which enhances the effectiveness of their pr ograms. Other organizations within colleges and universities reported the lowest mean implementation of benchmarks within the other organizations category. The findings are difficult to generalize to programs administered by other organizations, or to pr ograms administered by any particular type of other organization, because of the small number of responding other organizations (n = 17). Details of the partnerships and collaboratives deserve further exploration. The nature and resources of the private foundations and nonprofits must also be explored. Finally, some programs do not consider themselves college administered programs, even though the programs are administered by departments and offices within colleges and universities. Further research mus t explore the integration of programs for students with ID into the systems and structures of an institution. Programs with inclusive individualized support models also reported strong implementation of benchmarks. Inclusive individualized support mode ls were also reported more frequently than substantially separate models. This represents an improvement over the state of practice revealed in previous studies. Hart et al. (2004) reported only a small percentage of programs offering the inclusive indiv idualized support model and more respondents reporting a substantially separate model. Papay and Bambara (2011) reported that only inclusive individualized programs unanimously considered college course access a purpose of college

PAGE 156

156 programs for students wi th ID. A larger number of programs using an inclusive individualized support model suggests that inclusive academic access will also proliferate. A broad variety of optio ns is probably required to facilitat e individualized student programs and optimize pa rticipation in higher education settings. The options addressing each red important, and some options might be considered easier to impl ement for an individual, or small group of individuals, th an for an entire program. College programs serving adult students and mixed programs reported implementing a similar number of benchmarks. Because students who have exited high school are no longer receiving special education services under IDEA (2004), programs that include adult students must address their needs and goals using resources of the program and/or the college By implementing more benchmarks, programs serving adult or mixed age students can help those students address their postsecondary goals more effectively. Programs serving only high school students, programs administered by school districts, and programs with substantially separate programs were the three groups implementing the lowest mean numbers of benchmarks. These group s also re present some o f the smallest program categories Since only 25% (n = 22) of responding programs administered by school districts the population of college programs available to students with ID appears to have changed quite recently Papay and Bambara ( 2011) found that most programs responding to their national survey were operated by school districts. The recent development and identification of college administered programs are probably due, at least in part, to the guidance and structures within HEOA 2008.

PAGE 157

157 The small number of substantially separate programs responding to this survey suggests progress toward inclusive academic access That is, previous literature and surveys have revealed a large number of transition postsecondary programs using a su bstantially separate model to serve students with ID. The current survey found such models to be implemented less frequently than mixed model or inclusive individualized programs. Inclusive academic access is better demonstrated in mixed model or inclusi ve program s than in programs using substantially separate models L ower implementation of inclusive academic access benchmarks by school district administered programs may reflect the outsider status of such programs on higher education campuses A lso l ower implementation of benchmarks in programs serving only high school students may indicate that some secondary transition programs have simply relocated onto college campuses without really integrating into these settings. However, these findings are di fficult to generalize because of the small number of responding programs that serve only high school students (n = 22), are administered by school districts (n = 14), and/or have a substantially separate model (n = 9). Implementing more benchmarks would s eem to imply that programs have more options available to suit a variety of needs and preferences. However, the nature of some colleges and programs may make some of these practices unnecessary or unsuitable. For example, programs in a college with liber al enrollment policies may have no need to implement auditing or informal participation in courses which can be taken by students with ID for credit. CTPs and TPSIDs Implementing Benchmarks It is unsurprising that the programs approved as CTPs under fede ral financial aid guidelines and/or funded as model demonstration projects by the federal Office of Postsecondary Education were the programs reporting the highest mean number of benchmarks implemented.

PAGE 158

158 Approved CTPs would have already shown compliance wi th the inclusive academic access mandates of the HEOA (2008). in order to receive federal approval. To be selected as model demonstration projects, funded TPSIDs would have proposed to implement existing courses populated by students without disabilities. Each model program is practicing inclusive academic access in a different way -according to their context, college culture, and needs of their students. Relationships Between Program C har acteristics and Benchmarks I mplemented Programs for Different Age G roup s Implementing B enchmarks The statistically significant relationship between the age group(s) of students served by a Services Office (DSO), revealed by the chi s measure of association, is not surprising. School districts would have continuing responsibility for accommodating students with eligibility for special education services under IDEA (2004). Colleges would ne ed to assume this responsibility for adult students no longer being served by school districts. A relationship between the age group(s) of students served by a program and implementation of access to existing courses is a statistically significant relati onship but not a strong association. Age level of students served w as also found to be related to receipt of credit for college courses. While statistically significant, t his association was not strong A third statistically significant relationship be tween ages of students served and access to college courses beyond a predetermined list was r evealed by the chi square test of independence. This association was weaker than the other access. Progra ms serving high school students must implement the goals, object ives, and services required by

PAGE 159

159 may not demonstrate much focus on the inclusive college experiences of students A weak statistically significant relationship found was between age levels of students served and program implementation o f UDL training for professors. Since the primary focus of programs serving only high school students is not access to college cours es, training of college faculty is unlikely to receive much attention. The wide variability of student profiles within the population of students with ID makes age level seem a less than perfect predictor of access to college courses. However, the legal mandates pertinent to high school students with IDEA eligibility are quite different from those applicable to adult students. This fact may significantly affect the orientation and priorities exemplified by programs. Access to college courses may provide opportunities for students with ID to participate in age appropriate settings and activities but existing courses with or without college credit, Understandably, if ac cess to college courses is not considered a priority than training for college professors will not be a high priority. T he chi square test of independence showed a relationship between the age levels of students served and access to accommodations through the Disability Services Office (DSO) Both the chi square and t h showed th is was a stronger association than those previously described. be influenced not only by t he priorities of the transition p rogram but also by the level of responsibility that a college assum es for accommodating students who are still receiving special education services under IDEA 20 04 (P.L. ?). Program Model s Implementing B enchmarks The only r elationships between program models and implementation of benchmarks suggested by chi square tests of independence were associations with access to existing college

PAGE 160

160 courses and access to courses beyond a pre determine d list. The observed frequencies of imp lem entation for both variables were lower for separate programs than the expected frequencies. Observed frequencies of implementation by individualized programs were higher than the expected frequencies. This finding supports the previous finding by Papa y and Bambara (2011) that inclusive individualized programs unanimously reported college course access as a purpose for their college programs. These association between program models and access to courses beyond a pre determined list was stronger tha n the relationship between students a ge levels and access to college courses beyond a list. Substantially separat e programs might consider access to a variety of college courses a low priority. I nclusive individualized support programs would be more likel y to include access to a variety of college courses. Organizations Implementing B enchmarks A statistically significant relationship was found between administrative organizations and implementation of accommodations through the DSO. Only college admin istered programs reported frequency of implementation that was higher than expected. It is unsurprising that colleges would take responsibility for accommodating students with ID in their own programs. It might also be expected that college administered programs could coordinate services, within organizations. A weak statistically significant relationship was found between administrative organizations and imple mentation of UDL training for faculty. For this benchmark, colleges and other organizations both reported implementation frequencies higher than expected. School district administered programs were less likely to implement UDL training for faculty. It i s unsurprising that college administered programs were more likely to implement UDL training

PAGE 161

161 for their faculty. The implementation by other organizations is more difficult to understand. Since other organizations include a variety of partnerships colleg es and universities may still be initiating UDL training for their faculty. The relationship s between administrative organizations and implementation of access to existing courses as well access to college courses beyond a pre determined list, are unsurpr ising. College administered programs might be expected to implement access to college courses more frequently than programs administered by school districts. However, programs administered by colleges did not implement access to existing college c ourses at a much higher rate (62 %) than oth er organizations (45.5%). P artners hips within the other organizations category may help to explain the implementation of college course access in programs administered by other organizations. Evidence of Progress Towar d Inclusive Academic A ccess The findings ge nerated by this survey suggest that the field of postsecondary education for student s with ID is making progress towards inclusive academic access. Colleges and universities are taking ownership of a large number of transition postsecondary programs. Significant numbers of students are participating in college courses in a wide variety of higher education settings. A full continuum of options for participation in college coursework appears to be available to stu dents with ID in these college programs. Transition postsecondary programs are developing student centered and outcome oriented educational programs for their students. Implications Th e clearest implication that emerged from responses to this survey of inclusive academic access in college programs for students with ID was the need to continue using diverse tools and methods to create a variety of opportunities and options. No specific pattern of

PAGE 162

162 implementation could be described as the example to follow for developing successful transition postsecondary programs. While the CTPs currently approved under federal financial aid programs, and the TPSIDs funded as model demonstration projects, can serve as illustrative examples, there is great diversity acros s these model programs. Also, these programs can be recognized for emulating many of the requirements of the HEOA (2008) but not necessarily for suiting the college culture and the specific contexts of many other programs. Another clear implication for pr actice and research is the use and study of collaboration and partnerships within and among organizations administering college programs for students with ID. Grigal, Hart, and Weir (2012) found a high degree of collaboration between institutions of highe r education and school districts and adult services agencies. While only a small number of partnerships were reported in the current survey, collaboration and partnership seem imperative. ion with college important elements of the infrastructure necessary for inclusive academic access to occur (Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2011, p. 6) Descriptive studies must i lluminate the ways collabo rative effort s and partnerships are established and maintained, as well as the practices that are associated with particular partnerships, so that progress toward inclusive academic access can continue. Descriptive and empirical r esearch produced by the 27 model demonstration TPSID projects will provide crucial information to the field of inclusive higher education for students with ID. Descriptive research on the implementation of inclusive academic access by a variety of transition postsecondary programs is necessary. Such research will inform higher education populated by students without disabilities. Further research describing the characteristics of

PAGE 163

163 these postsecondary programs will permit the identification of links between identified characteristics and important outcomes. Limitations T he use of self reported data may have impact ed the vali dity and generalizability of the current (Dillman et al. 2009). As discussed previously, possible misinterpretation of items and/or responses must be considered when interpreting the findings of the present study Additionally, concerns regarding coverage of the population by the self identifi ed programs that voluntarily responded to the current survey must be considered (Dillman et al. 2009; Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2010) The settings in which students with ID participated and were enrolled were not discrete categories. Many programs indicat ed that students participated and/or were enrolled in multiple settings. Analyses of frequencies and relationships, according to program settings, were not conducted. Program settings may be strongly associated with implementation of benchmarks. This un examined variable may impact the vali dity and generalizability of findings. The current survey included a s mall sample and small expect ed frequencies that impacted calculation of chi square statistics. Ways in which variables were collapsed to permit the calculations must be considered when interpreting findings. A small number of responding programs for several categories also reduce s the generalizability of findings. Recommendations for Further R esearch Future research should certainly address the impac t of various college settings on the implementation of inclusive academic access by transition postsecondary programs for students with ID. Future research might also address how the infusion of outside funding and resources contributes to the effectivene ss of programs housed in colleges and universities.

PAGE 164

164 Further research must address what modifications of college policies on testing, prerequisites, and other eligibility criteria best afford comprehensive access to college curricula and catalogs. College s with open access policies for all students may not need to address such policies to include students with ID effectively. However, it seems likely that this set of benchmarks will require improved implementation to expand the inclusion of students with ID across more domains and levels of study. The group of 27 model demonstration TPSID programs must continue to report descriptive research on their characteristics, contexts, and practices, as well as empirical research on the outcomes of inclusive acad emic access, so that promising practices may be identified and emulated. Professionals planning and administering transition postsecondary programs for students with ID will also benefit from descriptive and empirical research produced by the growing numb er of approved CTP programs. Such data will include strategies that may be replicated to obtain federal approval under financial aid programs. Students with ID will then benefit from access to federal financial aid in support of their attendance. Future research must continue to describe the contexts, practices, and successes of this developing field, so that professionals can continue to discover strategies and solutions. Further research must address the comparative importance of each benchmark implem ented across various types of students, models of programs, administrative organizations, college cultures, and other contexts. Research must also document the outcomes of these programs, at multiple levels, in order to support the benchmarks of inclusive academic access as promising and evidence based practices.

PAGE 165

165 Figure 5 1. Ranked frequency of implementation of benchmarks

PAGE 166

166 Figure 5 2. Characteristics associated with highest implementation of benchmarks.

PAGE 167

167 APPENDIX A TRANSIT ION AND POSTSECONDARY PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES ABSTRACTS Grantee: Highline Community College ACHIEVE Program Highline Community College is proposing to increase the service capacity of the ACHIEVE Progra m in order to increase enrollment and educational opportunities of intellectually disabled clientele. Goal Statement: Expand and increase the education, employment services and opportunities for Highline Community College's ACHIEVE Program clientele. Ob jective 1.0: Expand service capacity for existing ACHIEVE students with the addition of both credit and/or non credit transition to college courses. Objective 2.0: Increase the student enrollment capacity by 10 new students each year of the five year pe riod. Objective 3.0: Provide person centered planning and a service need assessment for each LD (learning disabled) student enrolling into the program. Objective 4.0: Expand and standardize the ACHIEVE Program's Support Education services to include i ntensive advising, supplemental instruction, and peer mentoring and tutoring. Objective 5.0: Expand and solidify peer student partnerships on the Highline Community College campus with degree seeking students to become sources for mentoring and tutoring support for LD learners. Objective 6.0: Strengthen ACHIEVE Program service agreements with other community colleges in the area with differing program offerings not available at Highline, while maintaining access to employment placement and training supp ort from ACHIEVE.

PAGE 168

168 Grantee: University of Hawaii Hawaii Transition/ Dual Enrollment with Individualized Supports Model for Students with Intellectual Disabilities in Postsecondary Education Settings (CFDA 84.407A) Purpose: Applying the principles of i nclusion and self determination, the Dual Enrollment With Individualized Supports Model for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (DEIS) demonstration project will develop successful transition practices and promote quality, inclusive postsecondary servi ces and supports within the campuses of the University of Hawai`i system, resulting in improved employment and independent living outcomes for students with ID (intellectual disabilities). Project Goals: The DEIS project is designed by the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM) Center on Disability Studies and its consortium partners to demonstrate and replicate a sustainable, comprehensive transition model supporting eligible students with ID to participate within and complete a program of study, that: (1) provides individualized supports and services for the academic and social inclusion of students with ID in academic courses, extracurricular activities, and other aspects of postsecondary education (PSE); (2) offers opportunities for academic enrichment, socialization, independent living skills, including self advocacy, and integrated work experiences and career skills that lead to gainful employment; and (3) integrates person centered planning in the development of the course of study specific to each stu dent. The interagency partnership protocol will guide the participation, role definition and fiscal/service provision alignment of each of the three primary partners ( the U.S. Department of Education, Postsecondary Education Coordinating Center, and the D ivision of Vocational Rehabilitation) and the person centered planning protocol will guide the individual student planning and service delivery aspects of the DEIS model. The specific goals of the project are to: (1) Conduct a collaborative development p rocess to identify critical factors influencing quality transition and PSE for youth with ID that will result in the demonstration of a model consisting of evidence based strategies to effectively foster inclusive participation and learning in a PSE settin g; (2) Design, deliver, and assess the effectiveness of interagency team professional development activities to ensure effective implementation of services, supports, and accommodations, aligned with a PSE program of study; (3) Conduct a feasibility analys is of the developed model components and strategies to determine alignment with three levels of implementation (general student services; special needs and/or disability services; specialized services and supports) within targeted school, community, and PS E environments; (4) Deliver the scope and sequence of model demonstration strategies within a supported evaluation design; (5) Evaluate and determine the effectiveness of the model demonstration components and materials using valid qualitative and quantita tive process and outcome measures of post school success; and (6) Expand implementation to two or more other partnership sites in high need settings within the University of Hawaii system. Outreach will also be extended to partners in the outer Pacific Ba sin. The proposed iterative development and demonstration process will lead to refinement and replication of the model. Data will also inform participants and gauge student progress toward postsecondary outcomes resulting in the attainment of a meaningfu l credential and/or diploma upon their completion of the model program and improved employment and independent living outcomes. Participants: Participants in the model demonstration include: 150 students with ID, ages 18 26. Each project year, DEIS wil l enroll 30 students with ID from two high schools (i.e., 15 students per site per year), who have not exited high school with same age peers and who continue to be eligible for IDEA services, while indicating a desire to pursue postsecondary education.

PAGE 169

169 G rantee: West Kern Community College District Transition to Independent Living (TIL) West Kern Community College District (Taft College) began offering services to students with intellectual disabilities in 1976. In 1995, the Transition to Independent Living (TIL) program was conceived and has served a total of 216 students during its 15 year tenure. Marketing literature identifies the college as Administrative leadership at the college recognizes the absolute and critical need to enhance transition programming for students with intellectual disabilities. In 2007, Taft College President Willy Duncan and Student Support Services Director Jeff Ross initiated contacts with several dozen presidents fr om community colleges across the nation to inquire about their interest in joining together to form the National Community College Consortium on Autism and Developmental Disabilities. Over the last three years, this organization has grown to include 49 co mmunity college presidents representing 26 states throughout the nation. Many of these colleges have expressed a strong desire to replicate components of the TIL program on their individual campuses. Taft College TIL is requesting approval of a $2.49 mil lion budget over the five year grant period to expand and strengthen its current nationally recognized, award winning inclusive model comprehensive transition and postsecondary program for students with intellectual disabilities. Over the next five years, enhanced, sustainable support services to a minimum of 176 postsecondary and 175 secondary students transitioning into the TIL program from 42 feeder high schools across California. Additionally, partnerships strategi c to program enhancement will be continued and expanded with the Kern Regional Center and California Department of Rehabilitation, and Memoranda of Agreement will be finalized with industry partners such as Frito Lay and Goodwill. With new TPSID project r esources to enhance services, TIL program staff will: -Develop and implement a third year program centered on specific career and vocational skill development leading to higher skilled, higher paying jobs. This new, enhanced curriculum will greatly expa nd the career ladder available to all TIL students, providing meaningful nationally recognized credentials for students with intellectual disabilities, increasing their opportunity to be independent, productive members of society. -Provide students with enhanced, person centered individualized support and accommodations beyond what is currently being offered through student support services to help ensure their success in traditional academic classes. -Strengthen established partnerships with Taft High School and the 41 additional feeder high schools throughout California to more effectively support secondary students eligible for special education and related services. Grant funds will improve transition services and provide new vocational options for IDEA eligible students, opening doors to increased opportunities for success.

PAGE 170

170 Grantee: Houston Community College Vocational Advancement and Social Skills Training kills Training (VAST) comprehensive transition and postsecondary program for students with intellectual disabilities to serve more students, to establish VAST program services on additional Houston Community College (HCC) campuses, to assist other colleges and organizations to implement services for this population, and to implement an evaluation system that guides program improvement and expansion. To meet this goal, provide overall guidance for implementation of the project, and to address priorities for mulated for this funding opportunity, four objectives have been set: (1) to increase the number of students with intellectual disabilities served by expanding the array of college based courses, certificate programs, services, and activities with an 80 percent anticipated growth in enrollment. (2) to set up VAST satellite programs on additional HCC colleges to make access to services more accessible and convenient; (3) to formalize provision of technical assistance and consultation to other colleges and community programs nationwide interested in providing college level services to individuals with intellectual disabilities; and (4) to design and implement an evaluation system which can guide program improvement and expansion. Project initiatives a re designed to expand upon Houston Community College's VAST program established intellectual disabilities opportunities to experience academic and extracurric ular life at college. Its highly regarded courses and services, tested and refined over the years, will expand its efforts in the key areas of developing academic proficiency; learning employment skills and making career plans; training in independent liv ing, particularly self advocacy ; and participating in social, recreational, and enrichment courses and activities. Its experienced and well qualified staff will continue to use a person centered approach to work with individual students in preparing educa tional plans that meet their goals. It will continue partnering with area organizations, such as public school districts by addressing needs of students still being served under IDEA; the Houston Arc in teaching students how to plan and implement effectiv e advocacy activities and to become confident and successful self advocates ; universities by providing practicum experiences for their students planning careers in special education, general education, and other related fields; and with the state rehabili tation agency which sponsors at least 70 percent of students who participate in the VAST program.

PAGE 171

171 Grantee: Minot University Adult Student Transition Education Program Adult Student Transition Education Program (A STEP) at Minot State University (MSU) At a time when many parents across our nation face the anxiety of sending their child off to college, we write on behalf of families of the Great Plains confronting the fear and uncertainty of providing a safe and just life for a child whose needs exceed the current inadequacies of our academic institutions. A STEP will provide an inclusive postsecondary transition option for students with intellectual disabilities (ID) on the campus of Minot State University. University partners have committed to partic ipate in an interagency team to build a sustainable and replicable model founded on best practice Education Agencies (Souris Valley Special Services, Peace Ga rden Consortium for Student Support Services); Vocational Rehabilitation; Dakota College and other MSU entities including: Disability Services, Financial Aid, Housing, Center for Engaged Teaching and Learning, and the Student Success Center. This interag ency team will design systems and processes for effectively supporting students with ID in coursework, extracurricular activities, and student services including: housing, peer mentoring, tutoring, career services, advising, and college orientation. This project will engage students while building capacity at MSU; and work with transition staff, teachers, families, and administration to recruit five students within the first year. Each successive year will see the enrollment of ten students. At the end of the project funding, 35 students from the Northern Plains will have benefited from inclusive academic, extracurricular and employment opportunities at STEP will continu e to support an inclusive postsecondary transition program at MSU beyond the initial federally learned will increase the capacity of the entire state to offer a range of postsecondary options for students with ID at public, private, and tribal colleges.

PAGE 172

172 Grantee: Bergen Community College Bergen Community College/Camden County College: Garden State Pathways to Independence: Transitions to Higher Educ ation and Employment Bergen Community College and Camden College are building a pathway to transition students with intellectual disabilities into higher education. The proposed project will develop a model comprehensive transition and postsecondary prog ram for students that will provide academic, social skills and vocational training options leading to gainful employment. As large community colleges existing in different regions of the state of New Jersey, Bergen Community College and Camden County Colle ge propose to build on pre existing relationships with community local education agencies, corporate partners and existing college services to provide appropriate guidance and support to 20 students per year for each of the five years of this grant. Progra ms and services will be incorporated into the existing college community and provide integrated learning experiences for students with intellectual disabilities leading towards certificate options. Garden State Pathways to Independence: Transitions to Hig her Education and Employment for Students with Intellectual Disabilities proposes to serve 100 students during the five years of this grant. Each site will serve 10 students in year one through five for a total of 50 students per site. Key components of this initiative include close ongoing relationships with local education agencies (Bergen County Special Services, Teaneck, Paramus, Y.A.L.E. Schools, Inc.) as well as corporations and community services providers. The proposed grant provides educational services to students with intellectual disabilities that would otherwise have limited access to higher education. The grant focuses on transitioning the individual into postsecondary education and then into the community. There is an academic, vocational a nd personal skill component of the proposed program. Each piece is customized around the needs of the individual student to maximize succeed. The goals of the program are to: (1) integrate intellectually disabled and non disabled students; (2) demonstra te increases in literacy and numeracy for all students; (3) lead to a meaningful certificate or degree; (4) lead to skill applicable to gainful employment or continued expected outcomes are that the student will be able to: (1) manage daily activities through the application of life skills, 2) self determine both personal and career goals; (3) navigate services and supports available in their communities; (4) perform em ployable skills; and (5) self advocate.

PAGE 173

173 Grantee: California State University Fresno Wayfinders Program The funding is sought to establish an inclusive, individualized, comprehensive and sustainable, residential program on the California State Unive rsity Fresno (CSUF) campus, to support 45 transition age students (18 and onward) with intellectual disabilities to achieve employment and/or independent living goals. Wayfinders will serve individuals in the San Joaquin Valley, will be a model for the state that has only two residential programs, as well as collaborate with the Federal Coordinating Center. Wayfinders, partnering with the Center for Disability Innovation (CDI), Fresno Unified School District, Sanger Unified School District, California D epartment of Rehabilitation, PROJECT Search, and ARC Fresno will provide a higher education program focusing on leadership abilities and vocational training. Central Valley Regional Center (CVRC) has agreed to refer students with funding. The program is a 2 1/2 year (eight semester/year round) program preparing the student for adult transition into an environment of their choosing where they will live with minimal supports. Wayfinders includes a curriculum consisting of six domain areas: (1) Leadership; (2) University Inclusion; (3) Academic Life Skills; (4) Career Development; (5) Academic Lab School; and (6) Campus/Community Pathways. These domains are built into a certificate program offered by CSUF Division of Continuing and Global Education as well as an additional vocational certificate from PROJECT Search. The students will reside in on campus apartments and will be able to utilize all the complex facilities. The students will fully participate in and use other resources on campus, including the health center, recreational and sports facilities, the library, numerous food service outlets, plus the computer and learning resource labs. The following project goal and objectives incorporating all the nine elements of the absolute priority. The proje ct goal is to complete the development of a model demonstration project and implement it so that students with intellectual disabilities can transition successfully into higher education and into the workforce. This proposal is submitted by the CDI at Cal ifornia State University Fresno to obtain a Transition Program for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) grant to establish the Wayfinders transition to higher education program on the CSUF campus. The CSUF campus with 21,500 students and 1,138 faculty serves the six counties of the San Joaquin Valley of California (24,603 square miles) and is one of the most diverse and impoverished areas in the country. The CDI is a futuristic institute that combines education, service and research in a unique and synergistic way by housing all three functions in one entity. Wayfinders will be housed under the auspices of the CDI, with all of the resources available to assist students with intellectual disabilities. Objective #1 The project will partner with a local education agency and CVRC to provide outreach of services, recruitment of students with intellectual disabilities and will admit 45 students in which 90 percent will successfully complete the program over the five year grant cycle. Objectiv e #2 The project will, through person centered planning, provide 100 percent support services, credentialed education and enrichment, social integration, and career development for the 45 students in which 25 or more students will be placed in competitiv e or supported employment settings over the five year grant cycle. Objective #3 The project will partner, collaborate, and coordinate evaluation and activities with the Coordinating Center and partner with the Rehabilitation Counseling Program in which 60 graduate students will assist the project.

PAGE 174

174 Grantee: Central Lakes College Check & Connect: A Model For Engaging and Retaining Students with Intellectual Disabilities in Higher Education Central Lakes College (CLC) in partnership with Ridgewater College (RWC) in central and west central Minnesota, respectively, and the Institute on Community Integration (ICI), at the University of Minnesota, is seeking funding from the Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, to establish a n inclusive and comprehensive model for engaging and retaining students with intellectual disabilities in higher education programs. This demonstration project is based on 20 years of research on the Check & Connect (C&C) middle school, high school, and postsecondary education model concerning student persistence, engagement, and successful program completion, and will build on this knowledge in supporting the participation of students with intellectual disabilities. C&C is based on the principles of uni versal design for learning, person centered planning, self determination, and academic and social integration. CLC and RWC are community and technical colleges that, combined, serve 6,500 students. These colleges are uniquely positioned to support the goa ls and purposes of this competition, based on: (1) institutional commitments to providing quality educational opportunities for diverse student learners in inclusive, supportive, and accessible environments; (2) track record of working cooperatively with local special education/transition programs and community service agencies (vocational rehabilitation [VR], Workforce Centers, county offices, etc.); (3) more than 20 years of experience providing educational and vocational training opportunities for stude nts with ID; (4) small class sizes and an environment that supports many activities that give students the opportunity to enjoy an inclusive college experience; (5) with their local schools, community service agencies, employers, and families; and (6) strong commitment to and interest in participating in this project with broad community and state support. Both colleges have served students with intellectual disabili ties and are seeking to expand their capacity and expertise in serving these students. This project also proposes broad levels of collaboration at the state and community levels. For the purposes of this demonstration project, and in the interests of ach ieving broader statewide impact and adoption of higher education strategies and approaches for serving students with intellectual disabilities, a state advisory committee will be established. Additionally, a stakeholder workgroup will be established withi n both sites for the purposes of guiding and supporting project activities. The local stakeholder workgroups will include representatives from each of the colleges (e.g., advising, support services, faculty, administration), local special education/transi tion programs, workforce center staff, vocational rehabilitation counselors, county agency staff and others. Several strategies will be developed to broadly disseminate information concerning the impact and outcomes of the demonstration project. A projec t Web site will be developed and serve as a source of information concerning this demonstration project. This website and related information will be shared with all Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System (MnSCU), the University of Minnesota syst em, as well as private institutions of higher education within Minnesota. A procedural guide and other materials will be developed and disseminated through the project Web site.

PAGE 175

175 Grantee: Colorado State University Transitions Project: Opportunities f or Postsecondary Success (OPS) The Transitions Project: Opportunities for Postsecondary Success (OPS), to be implemented by the Center for Community Partnerships (CCP) in the Department of Occupational Therapy at Colorado State University (CSU), will dev elop and implement a high quality and inclusive postsecondary transition program for students with intellectual disabilities (ID), providing integrated opportunities that include postsecondary education and training, academic enrichment, inclusive socializ ation and recreation, assistive technology, self advocacy, independent living skill development, career exploration, integrated abilities. The OPS pro ject will build on a solid infrastructure of programs through the CCP in partnership with the Poudre School District, CSU Occupational Therapy Department, CSU Assistive Technology Resource Center, CSU Division of Student Affairs, CSU Resources for Disabled Students, Front Range Community College, the City of Fort Collins Adaptive Recreation Opportunities program, Foothills Gateway, Inc. and the CO Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. Students with ID who participate in the OPS project and pursue their pos tsecondary educational goals will receive meaningful credentials, certificates, and recognition for completion of the model transition and postsecondary program. OPS project goals include: 1. Development and Implementation of Postsecondary Transitions Trajectory for participating students with ID, including entry into credit, noncredit bearing and/or audited postsecondary courses, work experiences, training programs, internships, social/recreation activities, career exploration, and ultimately employmen t. 2. Provision of Universal Design for Learning training and technical assistance for participating secondary and postsecondary faculty, staff and administrators. 3. Provision of Individualized Transition Supports for Participating Students, including person centered planning, self advocacy training, life mentoring, social/recreation encouragement and support, job development and supported employment, serving 40 students with ID each year and totaling 200 students over the five years of the project. 4 Formative and Summative Evaluation of OPS model program development processes and outcomes, including tracking and documentation of accomplishments of all participating students with ID as they pursue their postsecondary educational, training, recreatio nal and career/employment goals. 5. Development and Implementation of Dissemination, Replication and Sustainability Plan to promote far reaching expansion of the OPS program and continuation of project initiatives after grant funding has ended.

PAGE 176

176 Grantee: College of Charleston REACH F.A.R. (Foundation, Augmentation, Replication) College of Charleston Students with intellectual disabilities who are included in regular educational settings develop linguistic, mathematical, and social skills that are dr amatically higher than their peers with similar challenges who are segregated in separate classrooms. Additionally, inclusive experiences that create opportunities for collaborative interactions between students with and without disabilities can reduce neg ative stereotypes and promote positive attitudes toward people with disabilities, thus forging the path for enhanced personal and professional opportunities. The R.E.A.C.H. (Realizing Educational and Career Hopes) Program at the College of Charleston is a new four year innovative postsecondary program for adults with intellectual disabilities who desire inclusion in the academic, professional, residential, and social college experience in a supportive environment. The REACH program was developed in 2010 a nd will serve six students in its first year. We aim to serve a minimum of 35 to 50 students by 2015. The current project will focus on three overlapping objectives of the REACH program, all designed to utilize inclusive mechanisms for addressing the need s of students with intellectual disabilities. The project will: (1) enhance and extend the core foundations of the REACH program; (2) expand cultural awareness and support of diverse learners and employees; and (3) improve student recruitment and retentio n, and evaluate the effectiveness of program components. professional, residential, and social arenas by enhancing and extending the core foundations of the REACH program. Several key aims will be targeted to achieve this central goal, including: (a) extensive, progressive training for faculty on Universal Course Design (UCD) via workshops, coaching, and on line training; (b) the development of a Center for Peer Education for training academic mentors, social buddies, teaching assistants, and job coaches; and (c) coordination of a collaborative career development effort that unites resources from local and national employers, Vocational Rehabilitation, Charle ston County Parks, Career Services at the College of Charleston, and our School of Business and Entrepreneurship to create new, innovative career options that offer competitive paid employment option Objective 2: We se ek to create a culture that embraces diverse learners and employees in order to maximize inclusion in the campus community, and to nurture enduring change that will create opportunities beyond our campus. Our goal is to foster new career, social, and resi dential opportunities for individuals with disabilities both at the College and in the greater community. Mechanisms for achieving this goal include: (a) a diversity awareness initiative developed in collaboration with our Office of Institutional Diversit y and Best Buddies that includes a speaker series and campus wide activities; (b) a research initiative designed to assess the impact of inclusion on attitudes toward diversity; and (c) collaborative, inclusive experiences across campus that include servic e learning, peer education and social engagement.

PAGE 177

177 Grantee: Trustees of Indiana University Indiana Partnerships for Postsecondary Education and Careers Postsecondary education (PSE) is one of the last frontiers of full inclusion for people with intelle ctual disabilities. The standards for successful postsecondary education for students with intellectual postsecondary education for people wit h intellectual disabilities, it is person centered experiences. The Indiana Partnership for Postsecondary Education and Careers includes: person centered planning; academic engagement; independent and community living skills; social and extra curricular activities; mentors; living where you choose (including the choice of on campus housing); work experience and career development; self advocacy and individualized supports. The Indiana Partnership for Postsecondary Education and Careers has emerged from a broad coalition of stakeholders (advocates, institutions of higher education [IHEs], local education agencies [LEAs], providers and others) that have been meeting for nearly two years and established a vision and mission in 2009. This proposal has sever al key components: Full implementation of PSE experiences at Anderson University and IUPUI, both who have established a beginning of PSE; Second tier implementation of PSE at IHEs already interested; Dissemination and recruitment to additional colleges an d universities of all sizes; Documentation and model development guidelines for adoption by other IHEs; Data on results including PSE achievement, social inclusion and career outcomes. The project will be conducted from the Indiana Institute on Disability and Community at Indiana established coalition as its advisory council.

PAGE 178

178 Grantee: Kent State University A Transition and Postsecondary Program for Students with Intellectual Disabilities at Kent State University Employment and postsecondary education outcomes of students with intellectual disabilities (ID) continued to lag by more than 50 percent from other disability groups and this gap has widened over the past two decades. In response to this need, the Higher Education Opportunity Act Amendments of 2008 established funding for the development of model Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Programs (CTPPs) which allow students with ID aged 18 22 to pursue a university approved program of study. The Center for Innovation in Transition and Employment (CITE) is proposing the development of a CTPP at Kent State University. This program will provide students with ID a four year program of study t hat includes university coursework, career exploration, paid work experiences and independent living opportunities. The following objectives will be pursued: 1. To develop supports and a program of study for students with ID through secondary school, un iversity, employer, and community partnerships. 2. To recruit 20 secondary students with ID through collaborative relationships with local education agencies. 3. To develop Year 1 competency related to career exploration through person centered planning and the Exploratory College 4. To develop Years 2 and 3 competencies related to career preparation through academic coursework, occupational training, and community work experiences 5. To support Year 4 transition to employment and community participatio n through partnerships with adult services and families 6. To develop materials for replication and disseminate these materials through publications, presentations, and technical assistance. The CITE is in a unique position to develop this program with m ore than 25 years of experience in developing campus based employment, recreational, and career exploration explorations for students with ID. The proposed project staff has been instrumental in developing these programs from their outset and Kent State U niversity offers total accessibility, public transportation, and a full range of leisure, academic, and employment opportunities. The ultimate outcome of this proposed CTPP will be competitive employment which will be evaluated by comparing the outcomes o f participating and non participating students with intellectual disabilities. The CITE will work closely with faculty, Career Services, and Student Accessibility Services at Kent State University; and with adult service providers including the Rehabilita tion Services Commission, Department of Developmental Disabilities, Social Security, and Work Incentive Act (WIA) programs to promote post school employment. After federal funding is phased out; the Kent State University CTPP will be maintained through br aided school and adult service funding, social security incentives, and financial aid programs.

PAGE 179

179 Grantee: Louisiana State University Transition To Postsecondary Project The Transition To Postsecondary Project (TTOPP) will establish inclusive postseco ndary options for youth with intellectual disabilities (YWID) in the state of Louisiana. TTOPP includes components centered planning (PCP) strategies to: ( a) identify their individual preferences and priorities across key domains of life (i.e., employment, social/leisure, community living, adult learning) by arranging and supporting ance their personal growth in all targeted domains. At a minimum, all participating youth will be supported to: based soc ial/recreational activities of their choosing similar peers. their independence, safety and satisfaction with the ir preferred option. and goals in the life domains described above TTOPP will offer training on Universal Design for Learning to ensure that partic ipating community colleges are welcoming and supportive of YWID. Finally, TTOPP will provide opportunities for persons preparing to enter professions that provide services and/or educate YWDD and families to gain direct experiences related to their field of study. TTOPP has secured commitments and support from a community college network and will work with five local school districts and the state Vocational Rehabilitation agency (LRS) over a five year period. All of our partners are committed to maintai ning the programs following the funding period. Implementation of TTOPP is designed to first establish the efficacy of the model on one community college campus with a single partner school district. In the final year of the project, a two day institute to teach interested parties (e.g., community college and local education agency administrators, educators, families, and other interested persons) how to implement the TTOPP model. The institute is designed to encourage additional school districts and co mmunity college sites to acquire the capacity to implement the model.

PAGE 180

180 Grantee: Ohio State University Transition Options in Postsecondary Setting for Students with Intellectual Disabilities TOPS Abstract Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Departm ent of Education (CFDA # 84.407A) -The goal of the T ransition O ptions in P ostsecondary S ettings for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TOPS) consortia is to develop, test and refine a statewide model that delivers inclusive postsecondary options inc luding participation in college classes, internships, housing and social experiences that result in improved academic, employment and adult living outcomes. Objectives: (1) Facilitate Statewide Participatory Action Team with state agency and consumer invo lvement to guide the project. This group will collaborate with an interdisciplinary support team of special educators, rehabilitation counselors, IT and digital literacy specialists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, employers, and paren ts to provide needed supports to maximize independence. ( 2) Provide TOPS for a minimum of 100 students with intellectual disabilities (SwID) through academic enrichment, integrated work experiences, housing, and social activities with age appropriate peers providing natural supports and education and job coaches providing customized supports to maximize adult outcomes. ( 3) Pilot technology supports to maximize independence of SwID. ( 4) Evaluate program components and students outcomes in collaboration with the coordinating center program to maximize student outcomes. (5) Disseminate products and findings through Web sites, articles, conferences, replication through mini grants and an open source digital repository. Number of Students: Approximately 100 SwI D including some with severe intellectual disabilities (SID), between ages 18 and 26, will be served at a minimum of four college campus sites: North Central State College, Ohio State University, University of Toledo and Xavier University. Partners: T Centers of Excellence and LEND programs (Nisonger Center and University of Cincinnati), the Ohio Developmental Disabilities Council, the Rehabilitation Services Commiss ion, the Department of Developmental Disabilities, representatives from each university and consumer advocacy groups such as Downs Syndrome Association of Central Ohio and the Association on Developmental Disabilities

PAGE 181

181 Grantee: Regents of the Universi ty of California Pathway at UCLA Extension Transition Program Successful participation in postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities often requires instruction in adaptive behaviors such as independent living skills, social and/o r interpersonal relations, employment readiness, and self advocacy skills beyond their K 12 education. Without this support and education, achieving their postsecondary goals and becoming successful, contributing members of society becomes less likely. U CLA Extension requests $2,030,009 from the Department of Education to partner with the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) to expand the existing Pathway at UCLA Extension program. This program expansion, known as the Pathway Transition Program would specifically include transition aged students with intellectual disabilities who are eligible for special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Our goal is to provide these students with a com prehensive educational program on a major university campus to promote their successful transition from high school into higher education. The Pathway at UCLA Extension Transition Program will bring 48 LACOE students to UCLA campus over the five year gran t period (October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2015) for a rigorous, one year, residential based education and enrichment program. While engaged in the program, students will participate in fully integrated academic courses; life, social and vocational skill development courses; internships; and numerous other social activities that are part of a traditional college experience. Students will live side by side with UCLA students and Pathway peers in apartments adjacent to the UCLA campus. Person centered plan ning through the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) process and transition assessments involving all stakeholders will tailor the program to meet the academic, career, social and postsecondary goals of each student. At the end of the program students ear n a certificate in postsecondary education transition awarded by UCLA Extension. Pathway at UCLA Extension is a two year certificate program providing a blend of educational, social, and vocational experiences. The first cohort of 17 students with intell ectual disabilities enrolled in Pathway in September 2007. The curriculum is based on a liberal arts education, including the arts, sciences, and humanities. Pathway promotes self advocacy, and uses individualized support to accommodate the different lea rning styles of students with intellectual and other developmental disabilities. Courses include training in life skills and career exploration, with a strong emphasis on practical learning.

PAGE 182

182 Grantee: The College of New Jersey Career and Communities Studies Program The College of New Jersey, Career and Community Studies Program, under the competition CFDA 84.407A, is seeking to expand and enhance its existing Postsecondary Program for Students with Intellectual Disabilities. This proposed five year project focuses on expanding and enhancing strategies for the successful inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities (ID) in a rigorous four year college program through: (a) developing a person centered system of advisement; (b) expanding optio ns for support; (c) developing person centered internships that connect students to meaningful post college employment ; (d) expanding and extending t he academic and social inclusion of students with ID through a peer mentoring program; (e) to expanding and enhancing the opportunities for students to students to acquire and use skills of independence and interdependence; (f) Preparing high school studen ts for college; and (g) related activities. The College of New Jersey will collaborate with its partners including families, local school districts (Haddonfield and Hopewell Schools Districts) service providing agencies (University Center for Excellence i n Developmental Disabilities Education, Research and Service; Neighbors, Inc.), and governmental organizations (New Jersey Division on Developmental Disabilities) to achieve the following: Goal: To extend and enhance the currently operating Career and Co mmunities Studies Program (CCS) at The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) so to result in establishing this it as a high quality inclusive comprehensive transition and postsecondary model program for students with intellectual disabilities. Objectives 1. Supp orting High School Students with ID to Think College In partnership with two local school districts (Hopewell and Haddonfield), provide training to school personnel, parents and high school students on the skills of academics and independence needed to b e a successful college student. 2. College Student Support Systems students attending the Career and Community Studies (CCS) Program. 3. Faculty Engagement To extend and enhance the will ingness and ability of faculty to support students with intellectual disabilities within typical college classes across TNCJ Schools and Departments. 4. Career Education and Training Program To extend and enhance the existing CCS Career Education and Co mmunity Vocational Career training program components toward increased relevance to individual students' person center plan and overall interests; and to ensure that students are situated in career path employment upon completion of their postsecondary pro gram. 5. Peer Mentorship To extend and enhance the current CCS Academic and Social Mentoring program support system through formalizing structures and evaluating practices that are congruent with the culture of college life. 6. Independent and Interdep endent Living Skills To extend and enhance the availability and resources to support age appropriate college based skills of independence and interdependence.

PAGE 183

183 Grantee: University of Alaska Anchorage TAPESTRY: The Alaska Transition Program for Studen ts with Intellectual Disabilities at the University of Alaska Anchorage This proposal details a request for funds to support a five year model demonstration project to develop a Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary (CTP) program at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) for 18 21 year old young adults with intellectual disabilities (ID). The TAPESTRY aims to school outcomes for students with disabilities in Alask have been competitively employed within one year of leaving high school is only 41 percent, and one year of leaving high school (nine percent). the Community and Technical College, and the Academic and Multicultural Student Services in partnership with t he Anchorage School District and the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation ( Competitive Priority 1 ). A Planning and Advisory Board, including parents, university students with disabilities, adult community service providers, Anchorage School District per sonnel, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Alaska Developmental Disabilities Council, Department of Labor and Workforce Development as well as UAA faculty and staff, will develop a Workforce Certificate that provides a college based education consisti ng of academic enrichment, life skills, work experience, and social offerings that lead to employment. A total of 35 youth with ID will earn a Workforce Certificate over the course of the five year project. TAPESTRY will weave new resources and strategie s into existing UAA structures and systems, as opposed to patching together temporary or artificial fixes. The approach will be based on an adaptation of the Inclusive Individualized Support Model (Hart, Grigal, Sax, Martinez & Will, 2006) with all instru to: 1. Establish a Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Program resulting in a Workforce Certificate (WC) using framework approved by the UA Board of Regents for youth with ID that blends together experientially based contact hours, continuing education units and non credit courses in employment, academics, life skills and social relationships. 2. Implement a modified postsecondary education inclu sionary model of instructional delivery and supports that promotes expansion to fully inclusive approach, utilizing Supplemental Instructional Leaders (peer educational coaches) and university practicum students.

PAGE 184

184 Grantee: University of Arizona Project FOCUS As students progress and enter high school the issue of post high school options and supports becomes very relevant for families. The need for a post high school transition program that supports students within postsecondary learning environments i s apparent and in need by students and their families. Project FOCUS (Focusing Opportunities with Community and University Support) will meet this growing need and set in motion a model demonstration program for other institutions of higher learning to re plicate. implement a nationally recognized program that promotes the successful transition of a minimum of 50 high school students with intellectual disabi lities, ages 18 to 21, into inclusive on campus classes and d Student Resources, Vocational Rehabilitation, Division of Developmental Disabilities, and the Sonoran University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research and Service (Sonoran UCEDD) to participate in the development of the model and delivery of transition services. Starting in October 2010 the College of Education will initiate the process too successfully transition high students, ages 18 to 21, with intellectual disabilities will be provided the necessary supports to participate in credit and noncredit educational opportunities In addition, students will be provided access to campus services, clubs, sporting events and social opportunities. To accomplish this goal, Project FOCUS will recruit a minimum of 50 high school students, ages 18 to 21, with intellectual disabilities f rom Tucson Unified School District to attend the University of Arizona (U of A). Project FOCUS instructional staff, with the assistance of collaborating partners, will provide the students with direct instruction and activities based on the guiding educa tional framework of universal design. Instructional content and activities will include self determination and advocacy, community and job related social skills training, person center planning, and enrollment in U of A credit and non credit courses, care er exploration opportunities with placement into competitive employment. The resulting outcomes will be a documented and replicable postsecondary transition model that will increase academic growth, self reliance, and employment of students with intellect ual disabilities.

PAGE 185

185 Grantee: University of Delaware Career & Life Studies at the University of Delaware: TPSID Model Demonstration Project For more than 15 years, the University of Delaware (UD), through its Center for Disabilities Studies, has collabo rated with school districts to provide campus and community based education services to young adults who have intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). School district and university students alike have benefited from the opportunity to engage e ach other in academic, work, and social settings. Within the last two years, UD expanded transition related services to include a one week intensive Pol icymaking program. UD also recently added a model employment service for adults with disabilities. Based on program evaluations, discussions with state and local partners, and inquiries to UD from families of individuals with disabilities, it is the cons ensus among stakeholders that there is a need in the state for postsecondary education options for individuals with IDD who desire more than a secondary education certificate or diploma, but who have not qualified for traditional postsecondary education pr ograms. UD proposes to fill this gap by establishing a Career & Life Studies Certificate program. Working in partnership with Delaware State agencies, school districts, other institutions of higher education (IHE), businesses, families, and individuals with IDD, UD will support expansion of postsecondary education options statewide through systems change, replication, and sustainability initiatives. An advisory council representing all major constituents will oversee project implementation and evaluatio n, which will be undertaken in all three project goal areas and integrated with activities of the national TPSID coordinating center.

PAGE 186

186 Grantee: University of Iowa REACH OUT REACH OUT comes Educational and year certificate program for students with intellectual disabilities (ID). REACH OUT will improve and extend internal and external partnerships to support students using a person centered approach to achieve eac living goals. Project staff will employ PIE ( provide, improve, extend) to transform REACH into a truly comprehensive, model transition program for students with ID. We will create, refine, asse ss, and disseminate curricula, innovative partnership exemplars, assessment tools, instructional protocols, and policy documents to enhance and extend the services and the inclusive opportunities REACH provides. REACH OUT will also develop a unique two ye ar Post Graduation Transition Support structure for students, families, and hometown employers as part of this grant REACH OUT will serve approximately 100, 18 25 year old students with ID. Partnering with the Center for Research in Undergraduate Educati on (CRUE) REACH OUT will develop qualitative and quantitative methodologies for assessment. Together with CRUE, data from the National Survey of Student Engagement and other instruments used to assess under graduate education across the nation, will be co mpared to REACH student outcomes resulting in an inclusive data set available nowhere else. REACH OUT goals are divided into two parts: student and program goals. Student goals pertain to developing and systematically evaluating, revising, and disseminat ing a person centered planning approach to help students with ID excels in seven core areas: (1) independence and daily life skills; (2) vocation and career development; (3) literacy and academic enrichment; (4) communication, social and interpersonal com petency; (5) leisure and community life skills; (6) self advocacy and self determination ; and (7) leadership development. Program goals pertain to creating a comprehensive, high quality program for students with ID at a major public research university th at: (a) is accessible to students with ID from diverse backgrounds; (b) is integrated into the professional/academic lives of faculty, staff, and students; (c) utilizes university and community resources in a sustainable, collaborative manner; (d) meaning fully infuses universal design and technology; and (e) imbeds ongoing formative evaluation and long term accountability. REACH OUT partners include one local and one out of state local education agency (LEA) on behalf of students currently served under ID EA (students with active IEPs), and one area education agency (AEA) serving 32 LEAs. REACH OUT will expand contractual arrangements with Vocational Rehabilitation and Access 2 Independence. Many departments -Teaching & Learning, Biology, Counseling, Reha bilitation, & Student Development, Pediatrics, Speech Pathology & Audiology, Health & Human Physiology, and School Psychology -are committed to collaborating with REACH OUT so more university students can become engaged with students with ID in their profe ssional training programs. Partnerships with the Iowa Center for Assistive Technology Education and Research, the Center for Research in Undergraduate Education, the Center for Excellence in Development and Disabilities, The Leadership Education in Neurode velopment and related Disabilities, UI Student Disabilities Services, University Housing, and Student Financial Aid provide the critical resources and expertise needed to achieve all REACH OUT goals.

PAGE 187

187 Grantee: University of Kentucky Supported Higher Ed ucation Project Regardless of all else, the label of college student is one that is worn with pride. Going to college is a rite of passage for many, an expectation for most, and an avenue of increased economic self sufficiency for all. But if you are a student with an intellectual disability (ID), the labels, expectations, and roles that you wear rarely include that of a college student. That must change. The shifts in society that have led to improved access to community supports and supported employme nt must now turn to providing equal access to higher education for students with ID, thus creating inclusive communities at the postsecondary level. This is the crux of this project. While subtle improvements at the federal level are acknowledged as stude nts with ID are recognized in the Higher Education Opportunities Act of 2008, more work needs to be done. The time is now to capitalize on these efforts to create a statewide model of Supported Higher Education, with a goal of providing outcomes based pos tsecondary opportunities for students with intellectual disabilities. The process has already begun in our state as various entities have individually initiated a myriad of supports and avenues for young adults who wish to attend college. The Supported H igher Education Project will use what has been learned from these efforts and develop a comprehensive system of support for students throughout the state. The objectives of the project are to: (1) support 150 students with ID in inclusive higher educatio n settings using authentic person centered planning; (2) train 2000 professionals in secondary and higher education and in disability services to effectively serve a broader audience of learners; (3) implement individualized certificates and meaningful aca demic recognition that promotes improved educational and employment outcomes; and (4) create viable funding streams to sustain project efforts beyond the project funding. The foci of the project will be the inclusion of young adults with ID in all aspects of college life, integrating academics, socialization, and meaningful work experiences within student centered plans. As true participants in campus life, students with ID will be able to meaningfully engage in the college culture, ranging from living in a dorm to taking part in study groups, rallies, and student clubs. Whenever possible, natural supports through peer mentors and classroom accommodations will be used, changing the college culture to one of inclusiveness where diversity is valued. Indepe ndent living skills and self advocacy will be overtly is to build capacity within the state for supporting students with ID to attend college. Over the course of generating sustainability by building the knowledge and skills and fostering the collaboration across agencies needed to maintain qual ity programs. Additionally, viable long term funding strategies will be developed to avoid overburdening resources that are already stretched thin in many Kentucky colleges and universities. The project will also work with local education agencies to ass ist in promoting a paradigm of supported education in which postsecondary education is an expectation, and not an exception.

PAGE 188

188 Grantee: University of Rochester Western New York College Consortium (WNYCC) The Institute for Innovative Transition (IIT) a t the University of Rochester responds to the Absolute Priority by organizing a consortium of four institutions of higher education (IHE) University of Rochester (UR), Keuka College (KC), Monroe Community College (MCC) and Roberts Wesleyan College (RWC) w hich will establish four model demonstration projects to promote the success of students with intellectual disabilities. The initiative responds to the Invitational Priority by extending and enhancing existing programs at three of these institutions. Eac h IHE will partner with a local educational agency (LEA): Monroe 1 Boards of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES), Penn Yan Central School District, Rochester City School District and Monroe 2 Orleans BOCES, respectively. The model demonstration projec ts will improve employment outcomes by increasing access to higher education for students with intellectual disabilities; however, each of the four projects will take a unique direction in developing an inclusive and meaningful experience: (1) UR will pro vide access to noncredit and credit bearing college courses and campus activities through the support of graduate and undergraduate student mentors. It will increase employment outcomes by providing inclusive paid and nonpaid internships on the campus. ( 2) KC will increase access to noncredit and credit bearing courses and develop a certification process that aligns with existing degree seeking certificates in its education department. (3) RWC will provide access to noncredit and credit bearing courses and inclusive employment opportunities through paid and nonpaid internships on its campus. RWC will establish a credential as students complete courses and wish to enroll in courses for credit. (4) MCC will provide access to noncredit and credit bearin g courses and develop a credential process. All four TPSID model demonstration projects will align existing practices on the campus to implement initiatives and ensure sustainability after completion of the grant period. The consortium will serve a minim um of 50 students ages 18 21 with intellectual disabilities. The consortium addresses Competitive Priority 1 through all four model demonstration TPSID projects by partnering with Vocational and Educational Service for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID a vocational rehabilitation agency) and the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD). VESID will provide employment supports to students enrolled in a model demonstration TPSID project as resources allow. OPWDD will continue providing supports to students it currently funds and will consider new students as resources allow. The consortium addresses Competitive Priority 3 through all four projects by involving students from the departments of education, special education, speech languag e pathology, psychology, art education and human services on every campus. During the five year grant period, the IIT at UR will provide planning assistance, training, technical assistance, coordination, person centered planning, data management and projec t evaluation to the four model demonstration projects.

PAGE 189

189 Grantee: University of South Florida St. Petersburg Florida Consortium on Postsecondary Education Transition Programs and Intellectual Disabilities The University of South Florida St. Petersbu rg (USFSP) is partnering with the University of North Florida (UNF) in Jacksonville, Florida, and Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, to form the Florida Consortium on Postsecondary Education Transition Programs and Intellectual Disabilities, hereinaft er federal grant to accomplish three major objectives. First, the Consortium will expand the existing transition programs on the three campuses of US FSP, UNF, and Lynn University, as well as fully align them with the criteria established for Comprehensive Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities into Higher Education (TPSIDs) by the Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Departm ent of Education. Secondly, the Consortium plans to work with nine existing postsecondary transition programs, to align them with the aforementioned criteria. The third major objective is to develop additional postsecondary transition programs for studen ts with intellectual disabilities, across Florida. Within all phases, emphasis will be placed on expansion of agency and business partnerships, and a comprehensive curriculum with inclusive academics leading to a meaningful credential. To achieve these go m will also collaborate with other appropriate partners to design and deliver professional development, an annual symposium, strategic program evaluation, and to ensure collaboration with the federal coordinating center.

PAGE 190

190 Grantee: University of Tennesse e A Vocational Certificate Program for Students with Intellectual Disabilities and Autism Education Programs; the Korn Learning, Assessment, and Social Ski lls (KLASS) Center; in partnership with Knox County Schools and Tennessee School for the Deaf; and in collaboration with the Divisions of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, proposes the program as an inclusive model comprehensive transition and postsecondary education opportunity for students with intellectual disabilities and autism. Post school services for individuals with disabilities in Tennessee are limited. Over 6,000 individuals with disabilities are on the waiting list for services fr om the Division of Intellectual Disabilities Services (DIDS). Educators are not equipped to provide career guidance, job development, and on going supports in the community. Project Goals: The program will be achieved through six goals: (1) create a post secondary education program for students with intellectual disabilities and autism at the University of Tennessee; (2) build university and community capacity in postsecondary efforts through partnerships, joint activities, workshops, and materials; (3) cr eate a vocational certificate recognized by businesses to graduates to gain increased employment opportunities; (4) create seamless transition services through training and technical assistance with Tennessee educators and families; (5) conduct continuou s evaluation and quality improvement of program services; and (6) establish program sustainability through continued cooperative efforts with university administration, expand services of the KLASS Center, determine a system to use IDEA funds for transitio n and postsecondary services, external funding, and/or philanthropic donations. Project Activities: The program curriculum is comprised of eight components: (1) university courses; (2) basic academics; (3) independent living skills; (4) vocational instr uction; (5) career development services; (6) socialization skills; (7) internships; and (8) vocational skills training. Additional services include: person centered planning; circles of support; tutoring; student support; recreation and leisure; parent/f aculty workshops; connections to community services; and job placement. Students will select university courses that will enhance their vocational goals and expand their social skills and networks through campus interactions with the university student bo dy through service learning and peer mentoring activities as university and community capacity for inclusive activities is expanded. Number of Students Served: The University of Tennessee program expects to provide services to 80 students over the course of the five year project: Year 1 (eight students); Year 2 (12 students); Year 3 (16 students); Year 4 (20 students); and Year 5 (24 students).

PAGE 191

191 Grantee: University of Vermont and State Agricultural College Project Inclusive Post Secondary Education Project Inclusive Post Secondary Education (PIPSE) will create high quality, inclusive model comprehensive transition and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities at the University of Vermont (UVM) and Johnson State College (JSC) in Vermont. The proposed program will be a consortium of institutions of higher education providing: (1) recruitment of students with intellectual disabilities ages 18 26 including dual enrolled students; (2) utilize a person centered planning approach t o identify the academic, social, living and employment needs of students with intellectual disabilities; (3) support students through peer mentors, developmental disabilities service agency specialists (DDAS), undergraduate and graduate academic peer coach es (e.g., special education and social work students), employment coaches (provided by the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, DDAS, and the Howard Center) (4) provide university support through the Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) offices of A CCESS and Disability Services; (5) support academic faculty at UVM and JSC through the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) design team to create curriculum that is inclusive and supportive of individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID); (6) two years o f increasing employment experiences in IHE and community settings leading to paid employment; (7) an option for international study and research participatory action research sharing for students with ID with students in Ireland; (8) opportunity for dual e nrolled students through collaborations with two local education agencies (South Chittenden, LaMoille); (9) advocacy training and experience through Green Mountain Self Advocates (GMSA); and (10) provide increasing levels of independent living experiences through collaboration with IHE residential life and the Howard Developmental Disabilities Center. The overall goal of this five year project is to provide individual support and services for the academic, physical, and social inclusion of students with in tellectual disabilities in academic courses, extracurricular activities, and other aspects of the institution of higher education's regular postsecondary program including internships leading to gainful employment based upon the principles of inclusion, un iversal design, and collaborative consultation. Project objectives include: (1) to develop a certificate program on two IHE in Vermont; (2) to identify financial resources for students; (3) to recruit, enroll, retain and transition students to gainful em ployment; (4) to provide UDL collaborative consultation for IHE faculty; and (5) to develop capacity throughout the IHE system in Vermont. Project collaborators include: (1) families and the Vermont Family Network; (2) Johnson State College; (3) two Verm ont local education agencies; (4) Howard Center and LaMoille Center Development Disabilities Agencies; (5) Trinity College Dublin (PSE Program); (6) Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and Developmental Disabilities Agency; and (7) UVM (ACCESS, D isability Support, Residential Life, UDL, Center on Disability and Community Inclusion, and the College of Education and Social Services). The project is expected to: (1) graduate up to 16 individuals with intellectual disabilities across UVM and JSC by 2015 ; (2) provide a certificate in professional studies awarded by UVM and JSC that includes academic coursework for students with ID with non disabled peers; and (3) support independent living and paid employment for up to 16 students.

PAGE 192

192 Grantee: Virgini a Commonwealth University Academic & Career Exploration: Individualized Techniques (ACE IT!) Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) proposes to provide an inclusive, on campus, transition and postsecondary program for young adults with intellectual disa bilities (ID). Implementation of this program will be accomplished through the leadership and collaboration of the Vice President of Student Affairs, Vice President of Academic Affairs, the Center for Teaching Excellence, the Rehabilitation Research & Tra ining Center, and the Partnership for People with Disabilities. The proposed goals of the project are: (a) develop and implement a college transition and postsecondary program (ACE IT!) at VCU for young adults with ID between the ages of 18 to 26; (b) ad apt the VCU on campus program at two community colleges; and (c) develop and implement training materials (including curriculum) and information for local education agencies, adult service agencies, young adults with ID and their families to not only prepa re young adults with ID for college, but also to assist localities around the state in developing and implementing inclusive postsecondary opportunities. VCU has strong ties with local education agencies, adult service agencies, and advocacy organizations a statewide strategic planning effort that VCU is facilitating with representatives from higher education agencies, university and college faculty and s taff, adult service agencies, local education agencies, young adults with disabilities, family members, and advocacy organizations. This group has met over the past eight months to develop a five year strategic plan for individualized, inclusive and authen tic postsecondary opportunities across Virginia. The focus of the group is the development and implementation of the inclusive individual support model which is currently not available in any Virginia higher education institution (two or four year). Th is proposal will address the development and implementation of this model at VCU and will adapt the model in two community college sites. This The outcomes of the ACE IT program are an established credential program and competitive employment process for college students with ID through the use of college academic and career supports. This will be achieved through a 30 month, on campus program that will focus on college students wit h ID building a series of academic learning experiences for credit or non credit selected from the VCU course catalog. It is anticipated that the program will be designed to serve up to 35 students with ID over the course of the model demonstration. App roximately 20 will be served at VCU and 15 at the community college sites.

PAGE 193

193 Grantee: Western Carolina University Secondary Education Program for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities The purpose of the proposed project is to expand and improve the Western Carolina University University Participant (UP) program. The WCU UP program was developed in 2007 as a pilot program to provide a two year, full time, inc lusive, on campus living and learning experience for persons with moderate through an individual, person centered planning process that leads to the d evelopment of their Individual Plan for College Participation (IPCP). The IPCP focuses on five areas: personal development skills; community participation skills; vocational preparation skills; social participation and learning; and elective course audit ing. At the completion of the two year period, based on successful program completion, participants are awarded UP Certificate Accomplishment by the WCU Office of Educational Outreach. The primary goal of the program is to facilitate the transition of p articipants from secondary school to an adult life characterized by a high degree of self determination, paid employment, independent living, and an overall high quality of life. UP participants live in WCU residential halls distributed throughout univers ity under the same university policies that apply to all WCU students. Their on campus life is fully integrated, and there are no separate facilities, settings, or classes for UP participants. WCU students are recruited to provide paid and unpaid natura l supports in order to facilitate participants living in dorms, attending classes, engaging in social and recreational activities, becoming involved in student organizations, and developing natural friendships and relationships. The UP program cooperates with public schools and community agencies that often provide support to participants while In the coming year (2010 2011), four new participants will en ter the program, two women and two men. ###

PAGE 194

194 APPENDIX B THINK COLLEGE STANDARDS WITH IMPLEMENTATION SCALE* Reprinted with permission from Think College (2012 ). Think College Standards with Implementation Scale.

PAGE 195

195

PAGE 196

196

PAGE 197

197

PAGE 198

198

PAGE 199

199 LIST OF REFERENCES A merican Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disability. (n.d.) Definition of intellectual disability. Retrieved on June 11, 2013 from www.aamr.org/content_100.cfm?navID=21 Americans w ith D isabilities Act Pub. Law No. 101 336, § 2, 104 Stat. 328 (1990). Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, Pub. Law No. 110 325, 122 Stat. 3553 (2008), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Assistive Technology Act, Pub.Law 108 364 (2004). The Associati on on Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD). (2012). Supporting accommodation requests: guidance on documentation practices. Available at http://www.ahead.org/resources/documentation_g uidance Blumberg, R., Carroll, S., & Petroff, J. (2008). Career and Community Studies: an inclusive liberal arts program for youth with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12 .5 6, 621 637. Blumberg, R., Carroll, S. Z., & Petroff, J. G. (2008). Career and community studies. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12 (5 6), 621 637. Blumberg, R., & Daley, R. (2009). The use of peer mentors to facilitate the inclusion of youth with intellectual and developmental d isabilities in post secondary education. The NADD Bulletin, 12 (5), 16 21. Carroll, S. Z., Blumberg, R., & Petroff, J. G. (2008). The promise of liberal learning: Creating a challenging postsecondary curriculum for youth with intellectual disabilities. Foc us on Exceptional Children, 40 (9), 1 12. Carroll, S. Z., Petroff, J. G., & Blumberg, R. (2009). The impact of a college course where pre service teachers and peers with intellectual disabilities study together. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22 ( 4), 351 364. Casale Giannola, D., & Kamens, M. W. (2006). Inclusion at a university: Experiences of a young woman with Down syndrome. Mental Retardation, 44 (5), 344 352. Causton Theoharris, J., Ashby, C., & DeClouette, N. (2009). Relentless optimism: Inc lusive postsecondary opportunities for students with significant disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22 (2), 88 105. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. Law 88 352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).

PAGE 200

200 Cobb, B., & Alwell, M. (2007). Transition planning/coordinating interventions for youth with disabilities: A systematic review. Retrieved July 15, 2013 from http://www.nsttac.org/sites/default/files /assets/pdf/pdf/what_works/2c_full_text.pdf Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, Mail, and Mixed Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Education for All Handicapped Children Act 20 U.S.C. 1401 1485 (1975). Florida Consortium on Postsecondary Education and Intellectual Disabilities. (n.d .) FDOE Technical Assistance Papers and Memos. Retrieved July 15, 2013 from http://www.fltpsid.info/FDOETAPs.php Gaumer, A. S., Morningstar, M. E., & Clark, G. M. (2004). Status of community based transition programs: A national database. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 27(2), 131 149. Griffin, M. M., McMillan, E. D., & Hodapp, R. M. (2010). Famil y perspectives on postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 45 339 346. Grigal, M., Hart, D., and Lewis, S. (2012). A prelude to progress: The evolution of postsecondary ed ucation for students with intellectual disabilities Think College Insight Brief Issue No. 12. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion. Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Migliore, A. (2011). Comparing the transition planni ng, postsecondary education, and employment outcomes of students with intellectual and other disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34 .1, 4 17. Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Weir, C. (2013). Postsecondary education for people with intelle ctual disability: Current issues and critical challenges. Inclusion, 1. 1 50 63. Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Weir, C. (2012). A survey of postsecondary education programs for students with intellectual disabilities in the United States. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9 (4), 223 233. Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Weir, C. (2011). Framing the future: A standards based conceptual framework for inclusive postsecondary education. Insight Brief, Issue 10. Grigal, M., Neubert, D. A., & Moon, M. S. (2001). Public school programs for students with disabilities in post secondary settings. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36 (3), 244 254. Grigal, M., Neubert, D. A., & Moon, M. S. (2002). Postsecondary o ptions for students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35 (2), 66 75.

PAGE 201

201 Guyer C., & Uzeta M. ( 2009 ). Assistive technology obligations for postsecondary education institutions. Journal of Access Services, 6 12 35. Hafner, D. (2008). Inclusi on in postsecondary education: Phenomenological study on identifying and addressing barriers to inclusion of individuals with significant disabilities at a four year liberal arts college. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Madison, Wisconsin: Edgewood Co llege. Hafner, D., Moffat, C., & Kisa, N. (2011). Cutting edge: Integrating students with intellectual and developmental disabilities into a 4 year liberal arts college. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34 18 30. Hammill, L. B. (2003). G oing to college: The experiences of a young woman with Down syndrome. Mental Retardation, 41 (5), 340 353. Hart, D., Grigal, M., & Weir, C. (2010). Expanding the paradigm: Postsecondary education options for individuals with autism spectrum disorder and in tellectual disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25 (3), 134 150. Hart, D., Mele McCarthy, J., Pasternack, R. H., Zimbrich, K., & Parker, D. R. (2004). Community college: A pathway to success for youth with learning, cognitiv e, and intellectual disabilities. Education and training in developmental disabilities, 39 ( 1) 64 66. Higher Education Act of 1965, Pub. Law No. 89 329 (1965). Higher Education Opportunity Act, Pub. Law 110 315 (2008). Individuals with Dis abilities Ed ucation Act, Pub. Law No. 102 119, 105 Stat. 587 (1990) Retrieved July 15, 2013 from http://www.education.com/reference/article/individuals disabilities educ ation act/ Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Pub. Law No. 108 446, 20 U.S.C. § 14 00 (2004). Retrieved July 15, 2013 from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,regs, 300,A,300%252E8 Jones, M., & Goble, Z. (2012). Creating effective mentoring partnerships for students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in intellectual Disabilities, 9 270 278. Kardos, M. R. (2011). Postsecondary education options for individuals with intellectual disability. (D octoral dissertation). Retrieved July 15, 2013 from Doctoral Dissertations (Paper AAI3485240). Available at http://digitalcommo ns.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI3485240

PAGE 202

202 Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Landmark, L., & Reber, A. (2009). Postsecondary education for individuals with disabilities: Legal and practice considerations. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 35 45 Katsiya nnis, A., Zhang, D., Woodruff, N., & Dixon, A. (2005). Transition supports to students with mental retardation: An examination of data from the national longitudinal transition study 2. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40 109 116. Kl einert, H. L., Jones, M. M., Sheppard Jones. K., Harp, B., & Harrison, E. M. (2012). Students with intellectual disabilities going to college? Absolutely! Teaching Exceptional Children, 44.5, 26 35. Landmark, L. J., Ju, S., & Zhang, D. (2010). Substant iated best practices in transition: Fifteen plus years later. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33 165 176. Martinez, D. C., Conroy, J. W., & Cerreto, M. C. (2012). P arent involv ement in the transition process of children w ith intellectual disabilities: T he i nfluence of inclusion on parent desires and expectations for postsecondary education Jo urnal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 9 ( 4 ), 279 288 McEathron, M., & Beuhring, T. (2011). Postsecondary education for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A critical review of the state of knowledge. Policy Research Brief Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota. Migliore, A., & Domin, D. (2011). Setting higher employment expectations for youth with intellectual disabilities. Data Note series, Data Note 34 Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion. peo ple with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9 289 297. Neubert, D. A., & Moon., M. S. (2006). Postsecondary settings and transition services for students with intellectual disabilities: Models and Res earch. Focus on Exceptional Children 39.4, 1 8. Neubert, D. A., Moon, M. S., & Grigal, M. (2002). Post secondary education and transition services for students ages 18 21 with significant disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34.8, 1 9. Neub ert, D. A., Moon, M. S., & Grigal, M. (2004). Activities of students with significant disabilities receiving services in postsecondary settings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39 .1, 16 25.

PAGE 203

203 Neubert, Moon, Grigal, & Redd. (2001). Post secondary educational practices for individuals with mental retardation and other significant disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation Neubert, D. A., & Redd, V. A. (2008). Transition services for students with intellectual disabiliti es: A case study on a community college campus. Exceptionality, 16 220 34. Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A. M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., . Schwarting, M. (2011). The post high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 year s after high school. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (NCSER 2011 3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved July 15, 2013 from www.nlts2.org/reports/ students with intellectual disabilities auditing undergraduate classes. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9 247 256. Ouellet, M. L. (2004). Faculty dev elopment and universal instructional design. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37 (2), 135 145. Paiewonsky, M. (2011). Hitting the reset button on education: Student reports on going to college. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34 .1, 31 44. Papay, C. (2011). Best practices in transition to adult life for youth with intellectual disabilities: A national perspective using the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University. Papa y, C. & Bambara, L. M. (2011). Postsecondary education for transition age students with intellectual and other developmental disabilities: A national survey. Education & Training in Autism and Developmental disabilities, 46 .1, 78 93. Rehabilitation Act, P L. 93 112, 29 U.S.C. § 504 (1973) Retrieved July 15, 2013 from http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/504/disability_primer_1.html Law, P. L. 111 256 (2010) Retrieved J uly 15, 2013 from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s2781 Rose D., & Meyer, A., (2002). Universal Design for Learning : Associate Editor Column. Journal of Special Education Technolog y, 15(1), 67 70. Rovai, A. P., Baker, J. D., & Ponton, M. K. (2012). Social Science Research Design and Chesapeake, VA: Watertree Press. Scott, S. S.; McGuire, J. M.; Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instructi on: A new paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial and Special Education 24 (6), 369 79.

PAGE 204

204 Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Statistical Reasoning for the Behavioral Sciences. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Shaw, S. F., & Dukes, L. L. (2005). Performance indicators for postsecondary disability services. Journal of Developmental Education, 29 .2, 10 19 Shaw, S. F., Keenan, W. R., Madeus, J. W., & Banerjee, M. (2010). Disability Documentation, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendme nts Act, and the summary of performance: How are they linked? Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22 (3), 142 50. Smith Lee, S. (2010). Overview of the Federal Higher Education Opportunity Act reauthorization. Think College Insight Brief, 10 Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion. Think College. (n.d.). CFDA#: 84.407B: Abstract. Retrieved July 15, 2013 from http://www.thi nkcollege.net/images/stories/ABSTRACT_final.pdf Think College. (n.d.). National Coordinating Center. Retrieved July 15, 2013 from www.thinkcollege.net/about us/think college initiatives/national coordinating center Think College. (n.d.). Think College Initiatives. Retrieved July 15, 2013 from www.thinkcol lege.net/about us/think college initiatives Think College. (n.d.) Think College Literature Database. Retrieved July 15, 2013 from http://www.thinkcollege.net/databases Think College. (2012 ). Think College Standards for Inclusive Postsecondary Education Retrieved July 15, 2013 from www.thinkcollege.net/for professionals/think college standards Think College. (n.d. ). Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) Spotlights. Retrieved July 15, 2013 from www.thinkcollege.net/may 2011/tpsidspotlights Thoma, C. A., Lakin, K. C., Carlson, D., Domzal, C., Austin, K., & Boyd, K. (2011). Participation in postsecondary education by students with intellectual disability: A review of the literature. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 24 .3, 175 191. Transition Coalition. (n.d.). Ages 18 21 Program Search Database. Retrieved July 15, 2013 from http://transitioncoalition.org/transition/18 21/index.php US Department of Educatio n. (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions and Other Pertinent Information Model Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Program (TPSID). Retrieved July 15, 2013 from www2.ed.go v/progra ms/tpsid/tpsid 2010 competition faqs.pdf

PAGE 205

205 US Department of Education. (n.d.). Students with Intellectual Disabilities. Retrieved July 15, 2013 from http://studentaid.ed .gov/eligibility/intellectual disabilities US Department of Education. (n.d.). Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities. Retrieved July 15, 2013 from htt p://www2.ed.gov/programs/tpsid/index.html Weir, C. (2004). Person centered and collaborative supports for college success. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39 .1, 67 73. Weir, C., Grigal, M. Hart, D. and Boyle, M. (2013) Profiles and Promising Practices in Higher Education for Students with Intellectual Disability. Think College. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion. Zafft. (2006). A case study of accommodations. Journal of Postseconda ry Education and Disability, 18 (2), 167 180. Zafft, C., Hart, D., & Zimbrich, K. (2004). College Career Connection: A study of youth with intellectual disabilities and the impact of postsecondary signs. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilit ies, 39 ( 1 ) 45 53.

PAGE 206

206 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Denise Michelle Voelker began her educational career as an English Education major at Towson State Uni versi ty in Maryland. After finishing her baccalaureate degree, she studied Special Education at the U niversity of Florida, earning a Master of Education degree in 1998 and a Specialist in Education degree in 2004. Shelly spent seven years as a teacher of special education and one year as a teacher of adult basic education. She has also worked as a readi ng specialist in the public schools and as blind technical assist ance and dissemination project. Shelly Voelker earned her Doctor of Education degree in the fall of 2013.