TRANSITION TO ADULTHOOD: SUPPORTINGYOUNG ADULTS TO ACCESS SOCIAL,EMPLOYMENT, AND CIVIC PURSUITS

Carolyn Hughes*Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee

“Transition support” is a concept new to the field of secondarytransition. This paper describes the development of a model of transitionsupport as derived from the empirical literature (Hughes and Carter. [2000]The Transition Handbook. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes). The compo-nents of the Transition Support Model are both empirically based andfield-tested among practitioners. The over 500 transition support strategiesthat compose the model have been used by practitioners in the field toimprove educational and postschool outcomes for high school students.These strategies are grouped according to two main goals (i.e., “developingsupport in the environment” and “increasing students’ competence”) andcorresponding components. Literature supporting the Transition SupportModel is described as well as the use of the model in the transition planningprocess. Suggestions are made for application of transition support in highschools and the need for future research. © 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.MRDD Research Reviews 2001;7:84–90.

Key Words: secondary transition; school-to-adult life; high school stu-dents

POSTSECONDARY OUTCOMES

Worldwide, the transition from high school to adult lifeis a challenge for any young person. For studentswith mental retardation or developmental disabilities,

this challenge can be especially intense. Research shows that,internationally, for many students high school is not a positiveexperience leading to a successful transition to adult life [e.g.,Bollingmo, 1997]. For example, in the United States, studiesshow that secondary educational efforts have not improved thequality of life experienced by large numbers of students [e.g.,Blackorby and Wagner, 1996]. Unemployment, financial de-pendence, and lack of social relationships are the outcomes facedby many American students when they leave high school. Threeto five years after leaving school, fewer than 8% of young adultswith disabilities in the United States are reported to be fullyemployed or enrolled in postsecondary education, active so-cially, and living independently in the community [Wagner,1995]. In addition, American students with disabilities who arefrom high poverty backgrounds and those who are nonwhite aremore likely to drop out of or be expelled from school and to beeconomically unengaged as adults [Lewit et al., 1997].

Poor postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilitiesare corroborated by international studies as well. For example,research in Ireland [Walsh and Linehan, 1997], The Netherlands[Korpel, 1996], and Norway [Bollingmo, 1997] indicates similar

rates of unemployment and unengagement as those found in theUnited States. Findings in the United Kingdom also suggestsimilarly limited social integration among adults with mentalretardation living in the community [Felce and Perry, 1997].These findings paint a dismal picture internationally of thequality of life of many students leaving high school. In thispaper, I will (a) review current legislation addressing the tran-sition to adulthood, (b) discuss the need for a model of transitionsupport, (c) describe the proposed empirically derived Transi-tion Support Model and its supporting literature, (d) proposeapplication of the model in high schools, and (e) suggest areasrequiring further research.

SECONDARY TRANSITION LEGISLATIONRecent legislation has been enacted to improve the out-

comes of secondary students with disabilities [Stodden, 1998].The major legislative initiative in the United States to addressadult outcomes of students with disabilities is the Individualswith Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997(PL 105-17). Similar legislation supporting postschool outcomesof high school students is being enacted in Europe [e.g., Korpel,1996], Asia [e.g., Li & Altman, 1997], and other geographicareas.

The 1997 IDEA Amendments enacted in the UnitedStates embody a coordinated set of activities and outcomes thatcomprise the secondary transition process and are designed toimprove students’ adult lives. As defined by the IDEA Amend-ments of 1997, transition services must include “instruction,related services, community experiences, the development ofemployment and other postschool adult living objectives, andwhen appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills” (Section602). In addition, Section 614 of the IDEA Amendments statesthat, “beginning at age 14 (or younger, if determined appropri-ate by the Individualized Education Program [IEP] team), astatement of needed transition services for the child, including,when appropriate, a statement of the interagency responsibilitiesor any needed linkages,” must be included in the student’s IEP.Finally, and updated annually, the IEP must contain a statement

*Correspondence to: Carolyn Hughes, Associate Professor, Department of SpecialEducation, Box 328 Peabody, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203.E-mail: carolyn.hughes@vanderbilt.edu

MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIESRESEARCH REVIEWS 7: 84–90 (2001)

© 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

of the transition service components ofthe student’s courses of study, such asadvanced-placement courses or a voca-tional education program.

The IDEA Amendments of 1997also propose educational goals that ad-dress the adult lives of students: “Disabil-ity is a natural part of the human expe-rience and in no way diminishes the rightof individuals to participate in or contrib-ute to society. Improving educational re-sults for children with disabilities is anessential element of our national policy ofensuring equality of opportunity, fullparticipation, independent living, andeconomic self-sufficiency for individualswith disabilities” (Individuals with Dis-abilities Education Act Amendments of1997, Section 601).

In addition, the Amendments statespecifically that the federal governmenthas an ongoing obligation to supportprograms that enable students to acquirethe skills that will empower them to leadproductive and independent adult lives.IDEA legislation requires that educa-tional personnel ensure that students“have the skills and knowledge. . .to beprepared to lead productive, indepen-dent, adult lives, to the maximum extentpossible” (Section 601).

Clearly, an intent of the IDEAAmendments of 1997 is to maximize thequality of students’ lives as they transitionfrom high school to postschool experi-ences. Secondary educators are expected toprovide transition services that are designedto promote the participation of all studentsin worthwhile and satisfying adult life ex-periences. These experiences may includehaving a promising career, engaging in per-sonal relationships, living in a comfortablehome, and enjoying leisure-time activi-ties—expectations many of us hold foradulthood. Postschool outcomes targetedin the IDEA Amendments—equal oppor-tunity, full participation in community life,independent living, and economic self-suf-ficiency—are goals that many would agreeare essential components of what we call“quality of life.” Indeed, researchers haveargued that the effectiveness of educationalprograms should be judged by the qualityof life outcomes experienced by programparticipants [Campo et al., 1997; Hatton,1998].

Impact of Secondary LegislationTo what extent is transition pro-

gramming helping high school studentsexperience expected outcomes in theiradult lives? Despite growing attentionin federal policy, research, and the me-dia, unemployment and lack of com-munity involvement persist among

young adults with disabilities. In addi-tion, although the 1997 IDEA Amend-ments require transition programmingthat takes into account students’ prefer-ences and interest—factors most peoplewould agree are critical to their qualityof life—recent studies show that tran-sition-age students often have little op-portunity to make choices and deci-sions for themselves. For example,teachers in the United States report lit-tle involvement by students in devel-oping their own educational goalsand programs or in participation intheir own individualized educationprogram (IEP) meetings [Wehmeyer etal., 2000]. Limited opportunities tochoose, unfortunately, may persist intoadulthood. Internationally, too often,choices about everyday living, such aswhat to wear or eat, how to spend freetime, or where to live or work, aremade by parents, teachers, or serviceproviders, even after students leavehigh school [Stancliffe and Abery,

1997; Wehmeyer and Bolding, 1999].In addition, international advocates ofquality of life among persons with dis-abilities decry the lack of attention toquality of life in the typical high schoolcurriculum [Hegarty, 1994].

Implications for SecondaryTransition Practitioners

The mandates of the 1997 IDEAAmendments present a challenge forpractitioners. They require secondarytransition programming that addressesevery aspect of a student’s postsecondarylife, including employment, commu-nity inclusion, and daily living. Theycall for developing a student’s compe-tence, participation, and productivityto the maximum extent possible. Whatis the role of secondary transitionteachers in planning and preparing stu-dents for full participation in employ-ment and other adult outcomes? Howcan educators, supported employmentpersonnel, and others be in compliance

with the IDEA mandates to addresspostsecondary outcomes?

NEED FOR A MODEL OFSECONDARY TRANSITIONSUPPORT

A concept that is just coming ofage in the field of secondary transitionis “educational supports”—services andassistance individually tailored to pro-mote successful educational andpostschool outcomes for students[Hughes and Carter, 2000]. The con-cept of transition support is derived fromthe literature on normalization [e.g.,Nirje, 1972], social role valorization[e.g., Wolfensberger, 2000], and sup-ported employment [e.g., Rusch andChadsey, 1998]. That is, support is de-signed to meet individual needs of peo-ple rather than to try to “fix” or “cure”them [Wehman, 2000].

A philosophy of transition sup-port accepts that all people need sup-port—just in varying degrees and indiffering areas of life. The idea behind amodel of support is that no one can beexpected to be considered “compe-tent” in all environments or under allcircumstances [Schalock et al., 1994].In fact, some students may acquire onlya limited repertoire of skills duringtheir high school careers. To enablestudents to develop competence to themaximum extent possible on an indi-vidual basis requires individually de-signed programs of support that addresseach student’s specific strengths, needs,preferences, and interests in the contextof each student’s particular educationaland postschool environments, includ-ing home, work, and community.

Transition Support ModelsUnfortunately, the traditional

secondary school curriculum does notaddress the needs many students have inorder to achieve adult outcomes thatmany of us take for granted such as amaintaining personal relationships,having a job, or owning a car [Hughesand Carter, 2000]. Consequently, theimportance of providing support forstudents as they make the transitionfrom school to adult life has been ad-vocated for almost 20 years. Supportmodels that have received attention in-clude Will’s [1984] “bridges” model ofschool to employment proposed by theOffice of Special Education and Reha-bilitative Services (OSERS), Halpern’s[1985] model of school to “communityadjustment,” the Individuals with Dis-abilities Act (IDEA) of 1990 (PL 101-476), which mandates support for the

A philosophy oftransition support accepts

that all people needsupport—just in varyingdegrees and in differing

areas of life.

85MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● TRANSITION TO ADULTHOOD ● HUGHES

transition from school to a range ofpostschool adult outcomes, and finallythe 1994 School-to-Work Opportuni-ties Act (PL 103-239), which addressesemployment among all youth [Stod-den, 1998]. Although the scope ofthese models differs, each is designed tomatch the type of transition supportprovided to a student’s individual sup-port needs across a student’s environ-mental contexts. The models are basedon the assumption that students needvarying amounts of support to fullyparticipate in general education and thecommunity during their transitionfrom school to adult life [Rusch andChadsey, 1998].

Current research offers some in-sight into factors that may promote suc-cessful student outcomes, such as paidwork experiences during high school,parent involvement, a network of familyand friends, community-based instruc-tion, and a good job match [Rusch andChadsey, 1998]. However, there is littleagreement on recommended practicesthat support the transition from school toadult life [Greene and Albright, 1995].J.J. Stowitschek (personal communica-tion, October 7, 1994) observed that “re-cent review articles have questionedwhat we know about what works inschool-to-work transition, even after adecade of research, development, anddemonstration.” Kohler’s [1993] reviewof best practices in transition suggestedthat there is little research support forcurrent transition strategies. The fieldcannot ignore findings, however, thatshow that secondary education has notled to successful adult outcomes for manystudents.

Research to Practice “Gap”: Needfor an Empirically Based Model ofTransition Support

Persistent social problems and un-favorable postschool outcomes, such aslack of employment, are often cited asevidence that research findings are notbeing applied in the field [Kaestle, 1993;Kauffman, 1993]. Research-based rec-ommended practices, such as communi-ty-based instruction, parent involvement,or paid work experiences, have beenfound to be inconsistently implementedin secondary transition programs[Repetto et al., 1993; Gallivan-Fenton,1994; Frank and Sitlington, 2000]. Onthe other hand, research findings must bepackaged in formats that are accessible toteachers, parents, and others [Lieberman,1995; Malouf and Schiller, 1995]. If re-searchers want effective transition sup-port strategies to be integrated into prac-

tice, they must present them in ways thatare acceptable and accessible to highschool teachers. In order for their prod-ucts to have credibility, researchers mustalso account for local school and com-munity conditions, attitudes, and values[Lieberman, 1995].

A potential solution to the problemof integrating research and practice insecondary transition may be to involveteachers as interactive partners in pro-gram development [Schwartz and Baer,1991]. Instead of a “one-way” approachin which information flows from re-searchers to practitioners, an interactiveapproach to the research process involvesteachers as contributing partners [Maloufand Schiller, 1995]. An interactive modelof program development calls for (a) ob-taining continuous feedback from practi-tioners and (b) incorporating this inputinto program planning, implementation,and evaluation.

Consequently, my colleagues and I[Hughes et al., 1997a–c] sought to de-velop an interactive model of transitionsupport that was both empirically basedand practitioner-tested. The transitionsupport model that resulted is unique be-cause support strategies it contains weredeveloped through an interactive collab-oration between teachers and researchers.The model is a result of over five years ofa cooperative effort between researchersand teachers to develop and packagefield-tested and research-based strategiesof secondary transition support derivedfrom a research-based model. The nextsection briefly describes the interactiveresearch-to-practice model that led to thedevelopment of the transition supportmodel [see also Hughes and Carter,2000].

Developing a Model of TransitionSupport

The first step in the developmentof the transition support model was toidentify research-based transition sup-port strategies derived from a compre-hensive review of the transition litera-ture, which yielded a total of 113empirical articles that addressed transi-tion support [Hughes et al., 1997a]. Inconducting our review, we definedsupport strategies as “any assistance orhelp provided directly to a student topromote a successful transition fromschool to adult life.” All support strat-egies that were shown to be effective ina minimum of two empirical studieswere included in a proposed model oftransition support strategies. Ten strat-egies were identified: (a) identify co-worker, peer, and family support; (b)

identify students’ preferences andchoices; (c) teach choice making anddecision making; (d) match support tostudents’ needs; (e) teach self-manage-ment and independence; (f) teach socialskills; (g) identify independence objec-tives; (h) identify environmental sup-port; (i) monitor social acceptanceacross time; and (j) assess social accep-tance.

Second, we conducted a nationalsurvey among researchers in the UnitedStates to determine the social validity ofthe proposed model of support strategies[Hughes et al., 1997b]. Findings showedthat the model and all support strategieswere rated highly by the research com-munity. Issues raised by respondents in-cluded the need to (a) develop specificimplementation procedures, (b) provideinservice training, resources, and supportfor practitioners, and (c) develop meansto measure constructs such as “indepen-dence.” In addition, although all supportstrategies received high ratings by re-spondents, three strategies were poorlyaddressed in the empirical literature: (a)teaching choice making and decisionmaking, (b) matching support to stu-dents’ needs, and (c) identifying environ-mental support. This finding indicates aneed to increase empirical efforts to in-vestigate procedures for teaching choicemaking and decision making and for pro-viding environmental support as neededto meet the individual needs of studentsin transition.

Third, we field-tested the modeland strategies among all secondary tran-sition teachers identified in the entirestate of Tennessee, including all urbanand rural geographic areas [Hughes etal., 1997c]. Like the researchers, theteachers were asked to rate the supportstrategies and the model according totheir importance to the transition fromschool to adult life. Results showedthat the teachers judged the supportstrategies and the model to be “ex-tremely important” to the transitionprocess as well as acceptable to practi-tioners. The teachers also listed a totalof 592 ways they implemented the sup-port strategies in their transition pro-grams. On the basis of the teachers’feedback (e.g., need to simplify word-ing and regroup strategies), the modelof support was modified for a finaltime. The resulting Transition SupportModel and its components are shownin Table 1.

The Transition Support Model,which was a product of the interactiveresearch process, is composed of thenearly 600 transition support strategies

86 MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● TRANSITION TO ADULTHOOD ● HUGHES

that the responding teachers provided.(See Hughes et al. [1997c] for a listing ofrepresentative teacher-identified strate-gies for each component of the model.)These strategies also are available to allsecondary transition practitioners in a us-er-friendly format with recommenda-tions for implementation in The Transi-tion Handbook [Hughes and Carter,2000].

TRANSITION SUPPORTMODEL AND ITSCOMPONENTS

Table 1 shows that the TransitionSupport Model is divided into two maingoals, as based on the empirical literature:developing support in the environment andincreasing students’ competence. Each ofthese goals has several components, alsoderived from the empirical literature, asshown in Table 1. A description of thetwo goals and their corresponding com-ponents and representative supportive lit-erature follows [see also Hughes andCarter, 2000].

Developing Support in theEnvironment

The first goal of the TransitionSupport Model is developing support inthe environment. Fortunately, a “deficitmodel” of student support, in which astudent must be “fixed” in response todemands of the environment, is nolonger accepted in education [Wehman,2000]. This model is being replaced by amore “ecological” approach in which theenvironment is modified and naturallyoccurring support is maximized in re-sponse to the full array of an individual’sneeds, preferences, and choices [Schalocket al., 1994]. Research shows that muchsupport is available in most environments[Storey and Garff, 1999]. In addition,acceptance of individual differences canbe promoted in a setting [Siperstein et al.,1996]. Strategies that comprise the goalof developing support in the environ-ment allow practitioners to maximizesupport in an environment as well as tobuild support and acceptance in environ-ments in which they are lacking. These

strategies are arranged according to threecomponents of the Transition SupportModel: promoting social acceptance, in-creasing environmental support, and in-creasing social support.

Strategies for Promoting SocialAcceptance

Strategies for promoting socialacceptance are based on the premisethat inclusion in the mainstream of lifeis a primary goal of the transitionmovement [Agran et al., 1999]. TheIDEA Amendments of 1997, which af-firm that all students should participatein the general education curriculum tothe maximum extent possible, are in-tended to provide students with greateraccess to the general education curric-ulum to ensure more successful em-ployment and independent living out-comes after graduation. Similarly, theDevelopmental Disabilities Act of 1984(PL 98-527) stipulates that the focus ofsupported employment for workerswith diverse abilities is integration withtheir co-workers without disabilities.Social inclusion may be defined as “fullyparticipating in the interactions thatoccur within an environment to thesame extent as other people do who area part of that setting” [Hughes et al.,1997a]. By participating fully in theinteractions in an environment, indi-viduals may gain access to a myriad ofbenefits, such as friendships, opportu-nities to learn, and personal satisfaction[Schnorr, 1997]. Social inclusion oc-curs when individual differences are ac-cepted and individual competencies aremaximized and supported [Hughes andCarter, 2000]. Physical proximity—simply being physically present in a set-ting— does not ensure that one is anactive and equal participant of that en-vironment [Williams and Asher, 1992].Secondary transition practitioners musttake an active role to promote accep-tance of students as equal members inemployment, general education, andcommunity settings.

Strategies for increasing environ-mental support address the finding that,

for many students, the success of theirtransition to adult life depends on theamount of support they receive fromtheir environment [Knowlton, 1998].When teachers, employment specialists,and others learn to identify this support,they can begin to match it to the needs ofindividual students (e.g., a clock that sig-nals break time, a sign that reminds em-ployees to wash their hands, or aislemarkers that tell a student where to finditems in a drugstore). The first step inidentifying environmental support is tomake a visit to a site and conduct anenvironmental survey of support that oc-curs there naturally [Hagner and Sande,1998]. Additional information gainedthrough interviews with important oth-ers can be added in order to build asupport plan for the student [Benz andLindstrom, 1997]. Environmental sup-port also may be promoted by increasingcommunity awareness and interagencycollaboration and by accessing servicesand resources [Everson and Guillory,1998].

Strategies for Increasing SocialSupport

Strategies for increasing social sup-port acknowledge that as students ap-proach adulthood, the amount of socialsupport students receive may influencethe degree of success and satisfaction theyexperience [Staub et al., 1996]. One ofthe greatest advantages of our work,school, and community environments isthat they are often rich sources of socialsupport [Rogan, 1996]. Opportunities tointeract socially, engage in relationships,and receive social support typically arecharacteristic of everyday life. In addi-tion, the intensity of social supportneeded differs from person to person[Chadsey-Rusch and Heal, 1995]. Whileone student may need only an occasionalreminder, another student may requireongoing assistance or encouragement. Inaddition, support needs may change overtime [Schalock et al., 1994].

Strategies practitioners can use toidentify social support in a setting andmatch it to a student’s needs are similar tothose for identifying environmental sup-port [Chadsey-Rusch, 1992]. Practitio-ners need to visit, observe, and analyze anenvironment as well as communicate andcollaborate with important others. In ad-dition, students may need to learn skillsin order to access social support that ex-ists in an environment or peers or co-workers may need to learn to communi-cate with or offer assistance to a student[Storey and Garff, 1999].

Table 1. Transition Support Model*

Developing Support in the Environment Increasing Students’ Competence

Promoting social acceptance Identifying and promoting students’ strengthsIncreasing environmental support Increasing students’ self-determinationIncreasing social support Increasing students’ choice and decision making

Promoting students’ social interaction

*From The Transition Handbook, by C. Hughes and E.W. Carter [2000], Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Reprinted with permission.

87MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● TRANSITION TO ADULTHOOD ● HUGHES

Increasing Students’ CompetenceThe second goal of the Transition

Support Model is increasing students’competence. When individuals areviewed as competent, they typically areaccepted more readily into an environ-ment [Wolfensberger, 2000]. Beingcompetent at what one does also allowspeople to access many benefits, suchas job advancement, educational oppor-tunities, and satisfying relationships.“Competence” is judged within the con-text of an environment [Schalock et al.,1994]. Competence must also be pro-moted, supported, accepted, and main-tained within an environment by teach-ing individuals skills and arrangingenvironments to support and maintaintheir competence. The strategies thatcomprise increasing students’ compe-tence are grouped into four componentsof the Transition Support Model: iden-tifying and promoting students’ strengths,increasing students’ self-determination,increasing students’ choice and decisionmaking, and promoting students’ socialinteraction.

Strategies for Identifying andPromoting Students’ Strengths

Strategies for identifying and pro-moting students’ strengths reflect themandate of the IDEA Amendments of1997 that students’ individualized educa-tion programs (IEP’s) emphasize stu-dents’ strengths rather than weaknesses.The move from “deficit-based” educa-tional programming reflects the beliefthat all students can and should be max-imally included in everyday school,work, and community environments[Walker, 1999].

One of the first steps in buildingstudents’ competence is to identify theirindividual strengths and the areas inwhich they need support [Sitlington etal., 1997]. Practitioners can pinpointthese strengths by observing students’ in-volvement in a variety of school, work,and community activities and by system-atically recording and evaluating theirobservations. Because observing studentsin different settings is both difficult andtime-consuming, practitioners can use al-ternative assessments (e.g., self-reportmeasures) to gather information not ac-cessible through direct observation[Schwartz and Baer, 1991]. In addition,information can be obtained by collabo-rating with family members, peers, com-munity members, co-workers, and otherindividuals who see the student regularlyas well the students themselves. When astudent’s strengths and needs have beenaccurately identified, instruction should

target those skills in a student’s repertoirethat need support [Hagner and Sande,1998].

Strategies for increasing students’self-determination refer to students’skills related to advocating for them-selves and acting upon their own life-style choices [Wehmeyer and Bolding,1999]. The recent focus on self-deter-mination dates back to the normaliza-tion movement of the 1970s [Nirje,1972]. The idea behind self-determina-tion is that when important others takeinto account a person’s choices, prefer-ences, and aspirations, that person canexperience the respect to which anyhuman being is entitled. The skills thatpromote one’s self-determination in-clude self-management, self-advocacy,choice making, problem solving, deci-sion making, and goal setting [Wehm-eyer et al., 2000]. Legislation that sup-ports self-determination includes theIDEA Amendments of 1997 and theRehabilitation Act Amendments of1992 (PL 102-569), which require in-

corporating self-determination into ed-ucational and rehabilitation programs.

Promoting students’ self-determi-nation calls for a change in our thinkingand our behavior. In the past, major life-style decisions were often made for stu-dents, often with little consideration fortheir interests or preferences. Practitio-ners must learn to teach people skills sothat they can speak up and act for them-selves instead of teaching them to dependentirely on assistance [Wehmeyer et al.,2000] In addition, practitioners mustlearn to provide support so students canmanage their daily lives, be responsiblefor their own behavior, make decisions,and act on their decisions.

Strategies for increasing students’choice and decision making reflect therequirement of the IDEA Amendmentsof 1997 that students’ preferences,choices, and interests as well as consider-ations for their cultural diversity be in-corporated into their individualized edu-cation programs (IEPs). Research shows,however, that transition-age students of-

ten have little opportunity to makechoices and decisions for themselves[Thompson et al., 2000]. For example,teachers report that students typicallyhave limited involvement in developingtheir own educational goals [Wehmeyeret al., 2000], which could result in beingplaced in a career track not of their ownchoosing. Limited opportunity tochoose, unfortunately, may continueinto adulthood. Too often, choices abouteveryday living such as what to wear oreat, how to spend free time, or where tolive or work are made by parents, teach-ers, or service providers even after stu-dents leave school [Stancliffe and Abery,1997]. Practitioners can learn to expandopportunities to choose and make deci-sions across many aspects of their stu-dents’ lives. They can also teach studentsto improve their choice making skills andto make wise decisions.

Strategies for Promoting Students’Social Interaction

Strategies for promoting students’social interaction address the finding thatif students are perceived as lacking socialskills, they may be less accepted by theirpeers at school or in the community[Williams and Asher, 1992]. They alsomay find it harder to get and keep a job,become involved in clubs or organiza-tions, make friends with their neighbors,or experience the other benefits of youthand adulthood [Butterworth and Strauch,1994]. Because so much importance isplaced on social skills, not meeting socialexpectations within an environment maylead to isolation and feelings of lonelinessfor a person. On the other hand, whenstudents perform expected social skillssuch as greeting others or starting a con-versation about a topic of common in-terest, they are more likely to be acceptedby their peers and others in a environ-ment [Chadsey-Rusch and Heal, 1995].

Practitioners can collaborate withteachers, work site supervisors, and oth-ers to increase opportunities for socialinteraction, such as suggesting that a stu-dent ride home with a co-worker. Or,practitioners may modify an environ-ment or curriculum to promote socialinteractions, such as having studentswork in small, cooperative learninggroups. Practitioners can also teach socialinteraction skills directly through activi-ties such as role play, problem solving, orpeer involvement [e.g., Hughes et al.,2000].

RECOMMENDATIONSThe Transition Support Model de-

scribed in this article is both derived from

Promoting students’ self-determination calls for achange in our thinking

and our behavior.

88 MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● TRANSITION TO ADULTHOOD ● HUGHES

the empirical literature and field-testedamong practitioners. Because providingsupport to students in the transition toemployment and adult life is an individ-ual matter, the Transition Support Modelshould be adapted on a case-by-case basisfor each student. Some students will needsupport in some areas and not in others.In using the Transition Support Model inthe transition planning process, practitio-ners should assess each student’s individ-ual strengths, needs, interests, and prefer-ences and develop a transition supportplan customized to each student’s indi-vidual profile.

In addition, there is growing em-pirical database supporting the effective-ness of the strategies that comprise themodel. For example Hughes et al. [2000]have used peer support and self-manage-ment strategies to promote students’ so-cial skills and social acceptance. How-ever, additional research is needed todetermine if widespread application oftransition support strategies results in im-proved adult outcomes for high schoolstudents, such as fulfilling careers, satisfy-ing interpersonal relationships, and asense of belonging and contributing to acommunity. f

REFERENCESAgran M, Snow K, Swaner J. 1999. A survey of

secondary level teachers’ opinions on com-munity-based instruction and inclusive edu-cation. J Assoc Persons Severe Handicaps 24:58–62.

Benz MR, Lindstrom LE. 1997. Building school-to-work programs: strategies for youth withspecial needs. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Blackorby J, Wagner M. 1996. Longitudinalpostschool outcomes of youth with disabil-ities: Findings from the National Longitu-dinal Transition Study. Except Child 62:399 – 413.

Bollingmo G. 1997. Survey of employment servicesand vocational outcomes for individuals withmental retardation in Norway. J VocationalRehab 8:269–283.

Butterworth J Jr, Strauch JD. 1994. The relation-ship between social competence and successin the competitive work place for personswith mental retardation. Ed Training MentRetard Dev Disabil 29:118–133.

Campo SF, Sharpton WR, Thompson B, et al.1997. Correlates of the quality of life of adultswith severe or profound mental retardation.Ment Retard 35:329–337.

Chadsey-Rusch J. 1992. Toward defining andmeasuring social skills in employment set-tings. Am J Ment Retard 96:405–418.

Chadsey-Rusch J, Heal L. 1995. Building consen-sus from transition experts on social integra-tion outcomes and interventions. ExceptChild 62:165–187.

Developmental Disabilities Act of 1984, PL 98-527, 98-2662-2685.

Everson JM, Guillory JD. 1998. Building statewidetransition services through collaborative in-teragency teamwork. In: Rusch FR, ChadseyJG, editors. Beyond high school: transition

from school to work. Belmont, CA: Wads-worth. p 299–318.

Felce D, Perry J. 1997. A PASS 3 evaluation ofcommunity residences in Wales. Ment Retard35:170–176.

Frank AR, Sitlington PL. 2000. Young adults withmental disabilities: does transition planningmake a difference? Ed Training Ment RetardDev Disabil 35:119–134.

Gallivan-Fenton A. 1994. “Their senior year”:family and service provider perspectives onthe transition from school to adult life foryoung adults with disabilities. J Assoc PersonsSevere Handicaps 19:11–23.

Greene G, Albright L. 1995. “Best practices” intransition services: do they exist? Career DevExcept Individ 18:1–2.

Hagner D, Sande JV. 1998. School-sponsored workexperience and vocational instruction. In:Rusch FR, Chadsey JG, editors. Beyond highschool: transition from school to work. Bel-mont, CA: Wadsworth. p 340–366.

Halpern AS. 1985. Transition: a look at the foun-dations. Except Child 51:479–502.

Hatton C. 1998. Whose quality of life is it anyway?Some problems with the emerging quality oflife consensus. Ment Retard 36:104–115.

Hegarty S. 1994. Quality of life at school. In:Goode D, editor. Quality of life for personswith disabilities. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.p 241–249.

Hughes C, Carter EW. 2000. The transition hand-book: strategies high school teachers use thatwork! Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Hughes C, Eisenman LT, Hwang B, et al. 1997.Transition from secondary special educationto adult life: a review and analysis of empiricalmeasures. Educ Training Ment Retard DevDisabil 32:85–104.

Hughes C, Hwang B, Kim J, et al. 1997. A pre-liminary validation of strategies that supportthe transition from school to adult life. CareerDev Except Individ 20:1–14.

Hughes C, Kim J, Hwang B, et al. 1997. Practitio-ner-validated secondary transition supportstrategies. Educ Training Ment Retard DevDisabil 32:201–212.

Hughes C, Rung LL, Wehmeyer ML, et al.2000. Using self-monitoring and goal set-ting to increase social interaction amonghigh school students. J Assoc Persons SevereHandicaps 125:153–166.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amend-ments of 1990, PL 101-476, 20 U.S.C. 1400et seq.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amend-ments of 1997, PL 105-17, 20 U.S.C. 1400 etseq.

Kaestle CF. 1993. The awful reputation of research.Educ Res 22:23–31.

Kauffman JM. 1993. How we might achieve theradical reform of special education. ExceptChild 60:6–16.

Knowlton E. 1998. Considerations in the designof personalized curricular supports for stu-dents with developmental disabilities. EducTraining Ment Retard Dev Disabil 33:95–107.

Kohler PD. 1993. Best practices in transition: sub-stantiated or implied? Career Dev Except In-divid 16:107–121.

Korpel MHT. 1996. Supported employment be-hind the Netherland’s dikes: trends in voca-tional rehabilitation for person with psychiat-ric disabilities. J Vocat Rehab 6:97–105.

Lewit EM, Terman DL, Behrman RE. 1997. Chil-dren and poverty: analysis and recommenda-tions. Child Poverty 7:4–24.

Li Y, Altman R. 1997. Comparison of special ed-ucation legislative mandates in the UnitedStates, China, and Taiwan. Educ TrainingMent Retard Dev Disabil 32:154–162.

Lieberman A. 1995. Practices that support teacherdevelopment. Kappan 76:591–596.

Malouf DB, Schiller EP. 1995. Practice and re-search in special education. Except Child 61:414–424.

Nirje B. 1972. The right to self-determination. In:Wolfensberger W, editor. Normalization: theprinciple of normalization. Toronto, Ontario,Canada: National Institute on Mental Retar-dation. p 176–200.

Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, PL 102-569, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.

Repetto JB, Tulbert BL, Schwartz SE. 1993. Astatewide transition database: what’s happen-ing in Florida. Career Dev Except Individ16:27–38.

Rogan P. 1996. Natural supports in the workplace:no need for a trial. J Assoc Persons SevereHandicaps 21:178–180.

Rusch FR, Chadsey JG (editors). 1998. Beyondhigh school: transition from school to work.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Schalock RL, Stark JA, Snell ME, et al. 1994. Thechanging conception of mental retardation:Implications for the field. Ment Retard 32:181–193.

Schnorr RF. 1997. From enrollment to member-ship: “belonging” in middle and high schoolclasses. J Assoc Persons Severe Handicaps 22:1–15.

School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, PL103-239, 20 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.

Schwartz IS, Baer DM. 1991. Social validity assess-ments: Is current practice state of the art?J Appl Behav Anal 24:189–204.

Siperstein GN, Leffert JS, Widaman K. 1996. Socialbehavior and the social acceptance and rejec-tion of children with mental retardation.Educ Training Ment Retard Dev Disabil 31:271–281.

Sitlington P, Neubert D, Leconte P. 1997. Transi-tion assessment: the position of the Divisionon Career Development and Transition. Ca-reer Dev Except Individ 20:69–79.

Stancliffe R, Abery B. 1997. Longitudinal study ofdeinstitutionalization and the exercise ofchoice. Ment Retard 35:159–169.

Staub D, Spaulding M, Peck CA, et al. 1996. Usingnondisabled peers to support the inclusion ofstudents with disabilities at the junior highschool level. J Assoc Persons Severe Handi-caps 21:194–205.

Stodden RA. 1998. School-to-work transition:overview of disability legislation. In: RuschFR, Chadsey JG, editors. Beyond highschool: transition from school to work. Bel-mont, CA: Wadsworth. p 60–76.

Storey K, Garff JT. 1999. The effect of coworkerinstruction on the integration of youth intransition in competitive employment. CareerDev Except Individ 22:69–84.

Thompson JR, Fulk BM, Piercy SW. 2000. Doindividualized transition plans match thepostschool projections of students with learn-ing disabilities and their parents? Career DevExcept Individ 23:3–25.

Wagner M. 1995. Transition from high school toemployment and post-secondary education:Interdisciplinary implications for youths withmental retardation. Paper presented at the119th annual meeting of the American Asso-ciation on Mental Retardation, San Fran-cisco, CA.

Walker P. 1999. From community presence tosense of place: community experiences of

89MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● TRANSITION TO ADULTHOOD ● HUGHES

adults with developmental disabilities. J AssocPersons Severe Handicaps 24:23–32.

Walsh PN, Linehan C. 1997. Factors influencingthe integration of Irish employees with dis-abilities in the workplace. J Vocat Rehab8:55–64.

Wehmann P. 2000. Foreword. In: Hughes C,Carter EW, editors. The transition handbook:strategies high school teachers use that work!Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. p xiii–xiv.

Wehmeyer ML, Agran M, Hughes C. 2000. Anational survey of teachers’ promotion of self-determination and student-directed learning.J Special Educ 34:58–68.

Wehmeyer ML, Bolding N. 1999. Self-determina-tion across living and working environments:a matched-samples study of adults with men-tal retardation. Ment Retard 37:353–363.

Will M. 1984. OSERS programming for thetransition of youth with disabilities: bridges

from school to working life. Washington,DC: Office of Special Education and Re-habilitation Services, U.S. Department ofEducation.

Williams GA, Asher SR. 1992. Assessment of lone-liness at school among children with mildmental retardation. Am J Ment Retard 96:373–385.

Wolfensberger W. 2000. A brief overview of socialrole valorization. Ment Retard 38:105–123.

90 MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● TRANSITION TO ADULTHOOD ● HUGHES