Title: CHOICEMAKER: A COMPREHENSIVE SELF-DETERMINATION TRANSITION PROGRAM, By: Martin, James E., Marshall, Laura Huber, Intervention in School & Clinic, 1053-4512, January 1, 1995, Vol. 30, Issue 3 Database: Academic Search Premier

CHOICEMAKER: A COMPREHENSIVE SELF-DETERMINATION TRANSITION

Discusses a transition program and curriculum, its materials, and their use

Successful people know what they want ana persrstently go after it (Hill, 1960; Hill & Stone, 1987). They decide upon major goals, set a timeline, develop specific plans to attain their goals, determine the benefits that reaching the goals will bring, close off discouraging influences and thought, and build coalitions with others who share similar goals and who encourage each other in reaching those goals. Garfield (1986), who interviewed more than 1,500 successful people from business, science, sports, and the arts, found that successful people in any field excel at making decisions, self-managing their behavior, and adapting to changing circumstances. When Garfield's peak performers made decisions, they (a) chose a mission leading to action; (b) envisioned and communicated a clear mission; and (c) developed an action plan consisting of specific goals and benchmarks to evaluate the timing, quality, and quantity of the results. Successful people

learn as they go, using educated risks and building confidence in their skills along the way. "It is not fear o failure that drives them along, but a strong desire for achievement" (Garfield, 1986, p. 138); see oneself "as the originator of actions in one's life . . . [viewing] events in life as opportunities for taking ction and [seeing] themselves as the agents who must precipitate action" (Garfield, 1986, p. 141);

r3 dapt by making course corrections and managing change through lifelong learning, expecting to succeed&. - - apping alternative futures, and updating their mission. m

Id reached two conclusions: First, regardless of age, education, or profession, the most successful share the same basic set of skills. Second, individuals can learn these skills.

Definin~ Self-Determination

The evolving definition of self-determination in the special education literature includes many of the behaviors and skills from the research on success. Self-determined individuals know how to choose--they know what they want and how to get it. From an awareness of personal needs, self-determined individuals choose goals, then doggedly pursue them. This involves asserting an individual's presence, making his or I

her needs known, evaluating progress toward meeting goals, adjusting performance, and creating unique approaches to solve problems (Field & Hoffman, 1994; Mithaug, 1991, 1993; Schloss, Alper, & Jayne, 1993; Ward, 1988; Wehmeyer, 1992, in press). A person who is self-determined chooses and enacts his or

Z her choices in persistent pursuit of his or her best interests (Mithaug, 1994). Further, self-determined 1

people are their own best advocates (Martin, Huber Marshall, & Maxson, 1993). - fL< 7

Page 1 of 12

I

nd Individuals with Disabilities

Do these same success and self-determination behaviors apply to people with disabilities? Yes, they do. In a unique study, Gerber, Ginsberg, and Reiff (1992) interviewed a group of adults with learning disabilities to determine why some were successful and others weren't. They found that successful individual learning disabilities had

a control of their byes and surroundings; a desire to succeed; well thought-out goals; persistence;

a adapted to their environment; and a built a social support network that facilitat

After conducting the interviews, Gerber et al. (1 992) realized that successful individuals decided, long before . - they became successful, that they would be successful. The authors concluded that successful adults with - severe learning disabilities wanted to succeed, set achievable goals, and confronted their learning disability - so that appropriate measures could be taken to increase the likelihood of success. One highly successful

young man explained it in the following way: "Successful people have a plan. You have to have a plan, goals, strategy, otherwise you are flying through the clouds and then you hit the mountain" (Gerber et al.,

f Unless we make changes in what we teach secondary students receiving special education services, they -; will "hit the mountain." Their future is clouded by increased probabilities for school dropout, unemployment

or underemployment, low earnings, and dependent living situations. Student outcome data verify the extent :: of the problem (e.g., Fardig, Algozzine, Schwartz, Hensel, & Westling, 1985; Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe,

1985; Hasazi, Gordon, Roe, Hull, Finck, & Salembier, 1985; Mithaug, Horiuchi, & Fanning, 1985; Mithaugke . Horiuchi, & McNulty, 1987; Wagner et al., 1991 ; Ward & Halloran, 1989). Parental reports identified poor self-confidence; ineffective problem solving; little self-direction, and a lack of awareness of their interests, needs, and abilities as the most important problems (Mithaug, Horiuchi, & McNulty, 1987). Unfortunately, special education programs do not teach the skills needed for postschool

1 Agran, 1987; Martin et al., 1993; Martin, Oliphint, & Weisenstein, 1994).

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA; P.L. 101-476) pushes educators to plan for students' post--high-school life, but if changes are not made, educators are in danger of making the same mistakes with transition planning as those being made with individualized education planning (Stowitschek

That is, transition planning will become just like teacher-directed Individualized Education s)--an administrative paper shuffle that has little impact on actual instructional practices

cation process does little to empower youth with learning and behavior problems. As a uth do not learn the skills needed to manage their lives. They remain dependent upon 0th

e decisions, provide support, and make needed changes (Mithaug, Martin, & Agran, 1987). xpended to teach students how to gain control of their lives and to adapt to changes in their

environments (Martin & Huber Marshall, 1994a). Perhaps the biggest culprit in this process is the IEP.

Whenever Appropriate Means Never

Included in the original P.L. 94-142 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) of Handicapped Children (1977) special education regulations is an almost-forgotten phrase that calls for student participation in IEP meetings "whenever appropriate." Unfortunately, few students participate in this crucial special education process. For students receiving special education services, "whenever appropriate" has simply meant never. A decade ago, Goldstein, Strickland, Turnbull, and Curry (1980) I

h~//s~s.e~eteMn/~1ktion.~~p?tb=O&~~g=~id+783E149~2DASlB0/PD44F7%2D9A6S%2D9AZE887SI48EO/~ionmgrS+BIB1&~uPhduT~~*3r#B&~~mU~T ... Pege 2 of 12 l

studied the dynamics of IEP conferences and found that (a) the special education teacher was the most dominant speaker, and (b) most of the conversation was directed toward the parents. Not a single student from the 14 observed attended the IEP conference meeting. Gillespie (1981) reported that more than 75% of students and 90% of parents did not know that students could attend their own IEP meetings. When asked about their attitude toward student participation, more than 90% of the parents and 75% of the students strongly agreed with the concept o re than 10 years ago, Gillespie and Turnbull (1 983) said. . -.! . - --

6.. - .r [q;' - +,-

m j , . , , -

Although a great deal of progress has been made by education agencies in implementing parent participation in education planning, very little has been done to include students with special needs in planning their own program. The potential of this involvement for furthering students' growth, maturity, and the exercise of appropriate power over their own lives is tremendous. While most persons are aware that school officials and parents are involved in IEP planning, many are not aware that the student may be included in helping to develop the IEP. (p. 27)

Several years later, the situation had not changed: - L,.\ *.- \. .& .' .<-* &v-&-: {!.. '+< ' . , +<?+-+'+-- -.* Z?,. .-.v,>.::&. .-. . . :-- , .- . && . . ..: - i.. i ..

Student involvement . . ., even at the secondary level, is for the most part either nonexistent or passive. l f k special educators plan and carry out instructional activities without involving or considering the adolescent's perceptions and priorities, they may be minimizing the student's self-determination. (Van Reusen & Bos, 1 990) i=:a ---- Mws@m& Nor has the situation improved since then: "Most students enrolled in special education programs are not being given the opportunity to participate in the development of their IEPs" (Van Reusen & Bos, 1994, p. 466).

IDEA mandates the inclusion of a statement of needed transition services in the lEPs of students 16 years old or older. IDEA defines transition services as a coordinated set of activities that promote movement from school to post-school activities. For the first time, federal law requires educational activities to be based on student's needs, preferences, and interests. These activities consist of instruction, community experiences, employment, and other adult living objectives, including, when appropriate, functional vocational evaluation.

Teacher-Directed Individualized Education ~lannin?**@

The teacher-directed individualized education planning process is under attack for several reasons. For one thing, it is a deficit model that does not focus on the students' strengths (Vandercook, York, & Forest, 1989). In a detailed analysis, Smith (1990) found that (a) traditional, teacher-directed lEPs do not foster specially designed instruction, (b) teachers don't use them for their daily educational activities, (c) general education teachers don't respond positively to them, and (d) most parents are passive at conferences. Smith concluded his review as follows: "We should acknowledge the IEP as nonviable and impractical and pursue other methods" (p. 12). Perhaps because student input is not considered and student involvement is minimal at best, the traditional, teacher-directed IEP has failed to find meaning in a student's educational experience (Martin

Currently, there are three alternative approaches to IEP development: (a) the Educational Planning Strategy (Van Reusen, Bos, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1987), (b) vision-based lEPs (Vandercook et al., 1989), and (c) the Choice-Maker Self-Determination Transition Curriculum (Martin & Huber Marshall, 1994b) (see Table 1). The Educational Planning Strategy prepares students to provide input into their educational conferences by teaching them how to make academic planning decisions that are based on current student awareness of

Page 3 of 12

. . . .. . . , . . .. . . - 7 . . '

B S C O ~ O < * ' ~ . . ~ . ~ ~ .- . ., : - . .. . . .~ . . . . . . . , . , - - . -. .+ , . ,- .> . ' , - .:. . - .,

, 2/15/06 12:09 PM . ~ . . . ; . ..;. ' . ' . , .. . ..... . ..-. ' ; . . - - .:' . .- >.. . . . . . , - '<.'.-..> ' . .., :. :

interests, strengths, and limits. The vision-based method centers on a value-based philosophy, collecting input from significant others to determine the interests, needs, and goals of individuals with severe cognitive disabilities. Input from the student is minimal. The ChoiceMaker approach teaches leadership of the IEP process through acquisition of crucial self-determination skills, which are based upon an experiential understanding by students of their interests, strengths, and limits.

Working with numerous educators and students from Colorado Springs area school districts, Educational Research at the University of Colorado developed, piloted and revised ChoiceMaker a self- determination curriculum, assessment, and instructional program

Curriculum

The ChoiceMaker Self-Determination Transition Curriculum (Martin & Huber Marshall, 1994b) is a validated curriculum. First, we conducted an extensive literature and comprehensive list of 37 self-determination concepts grouped into seven areas (see Table are self-awareness, self-advocacy, self-efficacy, decision making, independent and adjustment. Second, we operationalized each concept and put it into a we sent 95 social validation surveys to university-based transition experts, and parents from across the country. The 46 respondents validated the initial self-determination concepts

-*

and the curriculum matrix. Fourth, we conducted focus groups and field tests over 3 years to fine-tune the

The ChoiceMaker curriculum is sented in Table 3. The curriculum consists of three sections: (I) choosing goals, (2) expressing goals, and (3) taking action. Each section contains from two to four teaching goals and numerous teaching objectives addressing six transition areas. Figure 1 depicts the interaction between transition areas and student goal attainment. Students learn to manage their own go* , - 7->

attainment process by making decisio

The assessment component of ChoiceMaker (Martin & Huber Marshall, 1994b) is a criterion-referenced self-determination transition assessment tool designed specifically for use with the ChoiceMaker curriculum. Across each curriculum objective, the teacher rates student skill and determines the opportunity at school to perform each objective (see Figure 2). A graphic summary profile is prepared comparing student skill to opportunity at school across the three curriculum sections. The ChoiceMaker assessment tool is useful for documenting student and program achievement across time. Initial nationwide '--' -etest agreement scores are approximately 82%.

Lesson Packages

The ChoiceMaker lesson packages provide the materials and instructions for teaching the goals and objectives of the curriculum (see Table 4). Each lesson package is designed to be infused into existing school coursework and programs. Because the Choosing Goals and Taking Action materials can be used with any content, they can be used in either general education classrooms or in specialized teaching settings. The Self-Directed IEP lesson plan and the ChoiceMaker assessment instrument are desianed for - use with students receiving special education services.

Choosing Goals. In this section of the curriculum, students learn the skills and personal information needed to articulate their interests, skills, limits, and goals across one or more self-selected transition areas. A student video introduces the concept of choosing goals by showing actual high school students learning and using the choosing goals process. The lessons and materials take students through a systematic series of school- and community-based experiences across different transition areas.

http:I//suepndcodc1tation.asp?tb=0&~ug~3El498WDA51B%2D44FW02D9A65%2D9A2E88751 48E0/&essimmgr5+BIB1&Br~=hd+T~~SLsrctext+344B&dt~~mtI~T ... Page 4 of

EBSCOhost 2/15/06 12:09 PM

Worksheets keyed to students' experiences assist them in matching their skills, limits, and preferences to community opportunities. Because the lesson sequence isn't rigid, each lesson can be mixed and matched to correspond with the content and opportunities presented by existing curriculum and schedules. An example from this module is the "Job Characteristics I Like" lesson (see Figure 3). In this lesson, students compare the job characteristics they like to what exists at their worksite. Over a period of time, students graph their preferred characteristics to create a visual picture of the characteristics they like best.

Expressing Goals. In this lesson package, students learn the leadership skills necessary to manage their IEP meeting and to publicly disclose the interests, skills, limits, and goals that they gleaned from the Choosing Goals lessons. Rather than being passive participants at their IEP meetings, students learn to lead their meetings to the greatest extent of their ability, eagerness, and desire.

The lessons teach students 11 steps for leading their own meetings. The steps include procedures such as, "Step 1 : Begin meeting by stating purpose," and "Step 2: Introduce everyone." The lesson also includes inter-personal and social skills such as, "Step 6: Ask questions if you don't understand," and "Step 7: Deal with differences in opinion." The lesson materials include a video showing a student using each of the 11 steps to lead his own IEP meeting. In the student workbook, students apply each step to their own IEPs.

Taking Action. In this lesson package, students learn to break their long-range goals into specific goals that can be accomplished in a week. As presented in Figure 4, lessons teach students to plan how they will attain each goal by deciding (a) a standard for goal performance, (b) a means for getting performance feedback, (c) what motivates them to pursue their goal, (d) the strategies they will use, (e) needed supports, and (f) schedules. This leads to student action, evaluation, and adjustment. Rather than teachers, parents, or support staff telling students what to do, when to do it, and how they did, students assume these responsibilities. Of course, this requires a learning process that fades teacher instruction as students learn the crucial skills. These lessons can be applied to any goal or project.

Summarv and Discussion

Self-determination is an emerging field of study in special education. It pulls together success, self- advocacy, goal setting, problem solving, self-management, and self-efficacy research and thoughts. Thanks to federal support, a variety of methodologies for teaching self-determination skills are being developed. Working these into existing school programs is our challenge.

Academy School District in Colorado Springs built self-determination concepts into their postschool transition program by developing a transition policy rounded on self-determination and student leadership of the IEP process (Martin et al., 1993). The school and community committee that wrote the proposal took advantage of the opportunity provided by the individualized educational planning process to teach and provide students repeated opportunities to practice self-determination behaviors (see Figure 5).

We have presented the results from one of the federally funded self-determination projects, ChoiceMaker. The ChoiceMaker lessons and materials operationalize self-determination and teach crucial skills through the IEP process. We believe that students need to learn to control their own lives while they are in school in order to have a good shot at doing this once they leave school. Perhaps the Choice-Maker materials may be one small step in that direction.

Authors' Notes

1. The U.S. Department of Special Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS), in part supported the preparation of this article through Grant No. H158K100040. 2. We thank the numerous students and teachers in the greater Colorado Springs area who worked with us in piloting and testing the ChoiceMaker program.

A - ChoiceMaker B - Efiucational Planning C - Vision-based I D S

P#* Student leadership of entire IEP proce x Student participation at IEP mee x x x '-a

L.2 Transition focused x Academic focused x Decision made through stud& learning Decisions made on awareness Input £ran o Vision-based

a Most goal-setting information comes from signifi I

Founded on~.gIue,&s@ edua&~nid I m=@@-*

Table 2. self-~etermination Concepts

Information is presented in the following order: self-awareness; self-advocacy; self-efficacy; decision I making; independent performance; self-evaluation; adjustment

ldentify needs; Assertively state wants; Expect to obtain goal; Assess situation demands; Initiate tasks on time; Monitor task performance; Change goals

ldentify interests; ; ; ; ; ; Change strategies

; ; ; ; Complete tasks on time; Compare performance to standard

ldentify & understand strengths; Assertively state

; ; Set standards; Use self-management strategies; Ch

. . . . . , , , , , Evaluate effectiveness of self-management strategies

ldentify & understand limitation; Determine needed Change support

ldentify own values; ; ; Perform tasks to standard; ; Persistent adjustment

; Pursue needed support; decisions standard

; Obtain & evaluate needed support

; ; Conduct own affairs; ; Generate new, creative solutions

, :, Consider option ..:!-- -;,:.:..:: - :,:..-. . .- -.* '-

.i:.- ' : - '. : . . ..-.:. . ,'-

EBSCOhost

p;,.;: .- ; ; Choose best optio

i ' . . , " . - -, ; ; Develop plan

.: : ,

-- . ,.- - . .... Table 3. ChoiceMaker Self-Determination Transition Curriculum .esw, , 4:kmJ-w . ME^ . . - - . . - .. .

~ ~

Information is presented in the following; sections; teaching goals; teaching objectives

1: Choosing Goals (through school & community experience); A. Student understanding; A l . lndicate goal setting purpose & component; A2. ldentify student rights; A3. ldentify goal setting roles & timelines

; ; B. Student interests; B1. Express high school interests; 82. Express employment interests; B3. Express post-high-school education interests; B4. Express personal interests; B5. Express housing & daily living interests

. . . . . , , , , , B6. Express community participation interests; 87. Express what is most important

; C. Student skills and limits; C1. Express high school skills & limits; C2. Express employment skills & limits; C3. Express past-high-school education skills & limits; C4. Express personal skills & limits; C5. Express housing & daily living skills & limits

. . . . . . , , , , , , C6. Express community w.. ; D. Student goals; D l . lndicate options & choose high school goals; D2. lndicate options & choose employment goals; D3. lndicate options & choose post-high-school education goals; D4. lndicate options & choose personal goals; D5. lndicate options & choose housing & daily living goals

. . . . . . , , , , , , D6. lndicate options & choose community participation goals

2: Expressing Goals; E. Student leading meeting; E l . Begin meeting & introduce participants; E2. Review past goals & performance; E3. Ask questions if don't understand; E4. Ask for feedback; E5. Deal with differences in~opinion

. . . . . . , , , , , , E6. Close meeting by summarizing decisions

; F. Student reporting; F1. Express interests (from 81-7); F2. Express skills & limits (from C1-6); F3. Express options & goals (from Dl-6)

3: Taking action; G. Student plan; GI. Break general goals into specific goals that can be done now; G2. Establish standard for specific goals; G3. Determine how to get feedback from environment; G4. lndicate motivation to complete specific goals; G5. lndicate strategies for completing specific goals

; ; ; ; G6. Determine support needed to complete specific goals; G7. Prioritize & schedule to complete '

specific goals; G8. Express belief that goals can be obtained

; H. Student action; HI. Record or report performance; H2. Perform specific goals to standard; H3. Obtaine feedback on performance; H4. Motivate self to complete specific goals; H5. Use strategies to perform specific goals

. . . . . , , , , , H6. Obtaine support needed; H7. Follow schedule hi%&a&:

; I. Student evaluation; 11. Determine if goals are achieved; 12. Compare performance to task standard; 13. Evaluate feedback; 14. Evaluate motivation; 15. Evaluate effectiveness of strategies

- . - 16. Evalyate support used; 17. Evaluate schedule; 18. Evaluate belief ' 1 ' . !?..::*.:.-,. , .. ,. :. , , s f - . A -

; J. $tubenLdjuslment; J1. Adjust goals if necessary; 52. Adjust goal standard; 53. Adjust or repeat I http://~as.cpn~eom/citation.~~p7t~~ugsidt~3El498WDA51B%2W4~D9A650/DD9AZE8875I48E"~essi~1mgrS+B1B1&_~1~hbT~~SLsrceeXtt344B8r_~~mtI~T ... Page 7 of 12 1

method for feedback; J4. Adjust motivation; J5. Adjust or repeat strategies d -*..: 5 .<.am- ,

; ; ; ; J6. Adjust or repeat support; J7. Adjust or repeat schedule; J8. Adjust belief that goals can be - '

obtained

Table 4. ChoiceMaker Lesson Packages

Curriculum goal Lesson mdule -. . .

Choosing goals

Choosing epnployment goals Lesson plans

Choosing post-high-school Lesson plans education goals Student material

Choosing housing & daily Lesson plans

Choosing carnrrunity participation goals Student materials

Expressing goals The self-directed IEP Student video

Taking action Taking action

tudent materials Y <

DIAGRAM: Figure 1. Student goal attainment across p

Figure 2. Sample QloiceMaker assessnaent

SECTION 2: Expressing Goals (Does the student (Does schoo&

Student Skills Opportunity at School , ,;..-

. . . - do this?) provide

5.. - P n .

L.?. - -La-/d . - . v% . structured

ST:. . . , . ..>-.= -,* .... ----- , time?) .. . . .

.W:*-c'4 T&

'~r"c. Student Leading Meeting- (not at all 100%) (not at all 100%)

Does the student: , . -

El. Begin meeting by 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 stating purpose &

h ~ l l ~ e p o c t o M n l u $ t i o n . 8 1 1 p ~ ~ u g g i d + 7 8 3 B 1 4 9 8 T U D A S . 1 B ~ ~ A 6 5 6 2 D 9 ~ 5 1 4 8 E ~ i ~ + B 1 B l & I u s h & T ~ e r S L s t ~ 3 4 4 B $ ~ ~ ~ T ... Page 8 of I2 5 > . . - 2 - . ., 2 .

- - . I I

introducing participants?

E2. Wiew past goals and performance?

E3. Ask questions if student doesn't understand s-thing?

2 E4. Ask for feedback ~. .. . f ran group mabers X ~ ; ~ ; ~ > ~ ~ ~ r : . . . . ~. . ...-. . . .

. A ,.-,>-*L4L..*. -:, - . . - ::"ari-.-... E5. Deal with differences 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

in opinion?

E6. Close meeting by 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 . .I.: . . -

sumnarizing decisions?

Figure 3. "Job Characteristics I Like" sample lessonmaterial. ( noncommercial u

NAME: (underbar)

Directions:

WHAT I LIKE column: Circle the job characteristic that you like best in each box.

WHAT IS HERE column: Circle the job characteristic in each box that best describes what is at this job.

MATCHES column: Circle YES if the first two columns are the same. Circle NO if they are not. . . _ . . . ~ . <..-:. . . . t. , ' ,..-v2-.C' <.>. - ' - - . Rrv;;d ,;- AQllciJl.~;a .-& 1-a&.,hi..3h &;; , ..

WHAT I LIKE WHAT IS HERE MATCHES . . I . - . . .< -.:. .:

1. work alone work alone lots of people around

. - , - - , , . , ,,, ,:2;,,~F . < A

quiet workplace noisy workplace

work close to hame work close to hcnne distance to job doesn matt- . . ...-?::l,;:s;q::: !,$ matter

-4 s.,;? *- -T J

-ys only *ys ~ ~ b m l m a - a d y E s weekends too weekends too

- .

YES . ,

. - . . . .

, ' ,

Figure 4. "Take Action" sample lesson material--adjusted to vertical format. (This form may be photocopied for noncommercial use only. Copyright (C) 1995 by PRO-ED, Inc.

Name (underbar) Date (underbar)

General Goal (underbar)

Specific Goal (underbar)

Student Plan STANaARD FEEDBACX WWION S T R A m SUPPORT SCHEDULE What will How will Why do I What What When will I be I get want to do methods help do I do it? satisfied informa- this should I I need? with tion on use

my perf or- m c e

DIAGRAM: Figure 5. Academy School District's self-determination transition policy (based on Academy School District Transition Policy Statement, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Developed by a joint school district, community, and university committee). (From "Transition Policy: Infusing Self-Determination and Self-Advocacy into Transition Programs," by J. E. Martin and L. Huber Marshall, 1994, Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16(1), Figure 1. Copyright (C) 1994 by CDEI. Reprinted with permission.)

References

Education of Handicapped Children: implementation of Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act, Fed. Rag. 42475-4251 8 (1 977,Aug. 23).

Fardig, D. B., Algozzine, R. F., Schwartz, S. E., Hansel, J. W., & Westling, D. L. (1985). Postsecondary vocational adjustment of rural, mildly handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 52, 11 5-1 21.

Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (1994). Development of a model for self-determination. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Garfield, G. (1 986). Peak performers: The new heroes of American business. New York: Avon.

Gerber, P. J., Ginsberg, R., & Reiff, H. B. (1992). Identifying alterable patterns in employment success for highly successful adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 475-487.

Gillespie, E. B. (1981). Student participation in the development of Individualized Education Programs: Perspectives of parents and students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Gillespie, E. B., & Turnbull, A. P. (1983). It's my IEP! Involving students in the planning process. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16(1), 27-29.

Goldstein, S., Strickland, B., Turnbull, A. P., & Curry, L. (1980). An observational analysis of the IEP conference. Exceptional Children, 46, 278-286.

Hasazi, S. B., Gordon, L. R., & Roe, C. A. (1985). Factors associated with employment status of handicapped youth exiting high school from 1979-1 983. Exceptional Children, 51, 455-469.

Hasazi, S. B., Gordon, L. R., Roe, C. A., Hull, M., Finck, K., & Salembier, G. (1985). A statewide follow-up on post high school employment and residential status of students labeled "Mentally Retarded." Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 20, 222-234.

Hill, N. H. (1960). Think and grow rich. New York: Ballantine.

Hill, N. H., & Stone, W. C. (1987). Success through a positive mental attitude. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. section 1400 et seq.

Martin, J. E., & Huber Marshall, L. (1994a). Self-determination universal transition designs. In School to work: Transition for youth with disabilities [Consensus statement]. Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

Martin, J. E., & Huber Marshall, L. H. (1994b). ChoiceMaker self-determination transition assessment and curriculum. Colorado Springs: University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Center for Educational Research.

Martin, J. E., Huber Marshall, L., & Maxson, L. L. (1993). Transition policy: Infusing self-determination and self-advocacy into transition programs. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16(1), 53-61.

Martin, J. E., Oliphint, J. H., & Weisenstein, G. R. (1994). ChoiceMaker: Transitioning self-determined youth. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 13(1), 16-23.

Mithaug, D. E. (1991). Self-determined kids: Raising satisfied and successful children. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Mithaug, D. E. (1 993). Self-regulation theory: How optimal adjustment maximizes gain. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Mithaug, D. E. (1994). Self-determination. Manuscript in preparation.

Mithaug, D. E., Horiuchi, C. N., & Fanning, P. N. (1985). A report on the Colorado statewide follow-up survey of special education students. Exceptional Children, 51, 397-404.

Mithaug, D. E., Horiuchi, C. N., & McNulty, B. A. (1987). Parent reports on the transitions of students graduating from Colorado special education programs in 1978 and 1979. Denver: Colorado Department of Education.

Mithaug, D. E., Martin, J. E., & Agran, M. (1987). Adaptability instruction: The goal of transitional programs. Exceptional Children, 53, 500-505.

Schloss, P. J., Alper, S., & Jayne, D. (1993). Self-determination for people with disabilities: Choice, risk, and dignity. Exceptional Children, 60, 21 5-225.

Smith, S. W. (1990). Individualized education programs (IEPs) in special education--From intent to acquiescence. Exceptional Children, 57, 6-14.

Stowitschek, J. J., & Kelso, C. A. (1989). Are we in danger of making the same mistakes with lTPs as were made with IEPs? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 12, 139-151.

Vandercook, T., York, J., & Forest, M. (1989). The McGill action planning system (MAPS): A strategy for building the vision. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 205-215.

Van Reusen, A, K., & Bm, C. S. (19QO). IPLAN: Helping students cornmuni&e in planning conf@@nws. Teaching EJa'mptbnal Childmn, 22(4), 30-32.

Van Reusen, A. K., & Bos, C. S. (1994). Faciliiatlng student patiiipation in IndMduIiied Education Programs through motivation strawy instruction. Exceptional Children, 60,466-475.

Van Reusen, A. K., Bos, C. S., Schumaker, J. B,, & Deshler, D. D. (1987). The educational planning

strategy. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., D'Amico, R., Jay, E. D., Butler-Nolin, P., Marder, C., & Cox, R. (1991). Youth with disabilities: How are they doing? Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Ward, M.J. (1988). The many facets of self-determination. National Information Center for Children and=, 6

Youth with Handicaps: Transition Summary, 5, 2-3.

Ward, M. J., & Halloron, W. J. (1989). Transition to uncertainty: Status of many school leavers with severe disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 12(2), 71-81.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1 992). Self-determination: Critical skills for outcome-oriented transition services. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 15, 3-9.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (in press). Using the life centered education curriculum to promote self-determination. In D. E. Brolin (Ed.), Life centered career education, competency units for personal-social skills. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

By James E. Martin and Laura Huber Marshall

James E. Martin. PhD, is a professor and the director of the ChoiceMaker Self-Determination Transition Project in the School of Education at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. Laura Huber Marshall, MA, is a professional research assistant and the coordinator for the,ChoiceMaker Serf-Determination Transition Project. Address: James E. Martin, School of Education, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, PO Box 71 50, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-71 50.

Copyright of lntervention in School & Clinic is the property of PRO-ED and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Source: Intervention in School & Clinic, Jan95, Vol. 30 Issue 3, p147, lop, 3 charts, 1 diagram, 3bw. Item Number: 9502034544

Formats: @ HTML Full Text Citation

Close Window @I 6h E-mail 6d Save

02006 EBSCO Publishing. Privacv Policv - Terms of Use - Co~vriaht

Page 12 of 12