AUDREY TRAINOR. The University of ... AUDREY TRAINOR. To be a ..... the participants' perspectives as they construct meaning from the text (Anzul, Evans,.
QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION, 2002, VOL. 15, NO. 6, 711-725
~ Taylor & Francis ~
Taylor&FrandsGroup
Self-determination for students with learning disabilities: is it a universal value? AUDREY TRAINOR The University of Texas, Austin
Teaching students with learning disabilities to be self-determining during postsecondary transition planning is considered beneficial for students. Few self-determination studies, however, have focused on the impact students' cultural identities may have on the practice of self-determination during transition planning. A review of self-determination literature is presented and includes concept definition, characteristics, and example components of model programs. Additionally, multicultural special education literature helps frame the need to consider the interplay between programs that promote self-determination and culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Qualitative research methods, used with student participants, have the potential to inform preferred practices as well as research gaps in special education by capturing how diverse students respond to self-determination during postsecondary transition planning. Introduction Teaching students with learning disabilities (LD) to be self-determining during the transition from high school to adulthood is considered good special education practice (Field, 1996). Encouraging students with LD to set goals, make choices, and selfassess, which are key components in self-determination models, may increase their successful transition into adulthood. Similarly, valuing diversity during transition planning is emphasized in both research and legislation (Greene & Nefsky, 1999; IDEA, 1997). The compatibility of these two preferred practices, however, is unclear. Students with LD from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds may differ from members of the dominant group in their practice and preference for becoming self-determining. The current body of self-determination research does not comprehensively consider the strengths and needs of the OLD population, which may contribute to their struggle for successful transition from high school to postsecondary settings. Postsecondary outcomes for both OLD students and students with LD have not been optimal. Consider current dropout rates from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 1999). In 1999, approximately 11% of high school students dropped out. VVhile this rate represents a decline in the national dropout rate, a close examination Of dropout statistics and ethnicity reveals that group dropout rates vary. For example, the dropout rate for Asians was 4.3%, for Whites 7.3o/o, for AfricanAmericans, 12.6%; and for Hispanics, 28.6%. Consider also that between 36% and 56% of students with LD leave high school without a diploma or certificate of completion (Collett-Klingenberg, 1998). According to a 1996 follow-up study contained in the 22nd Annual Report to Congress, only 18.7% of graduates with LD were enrolled in academic postsecondary educational settings and 17.8% in vocational educational settings (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). 111/ernalianal Ja,;mal ef QpalilativaStudies iu EducationlSSN 0951-8398 print/ISSN 1366-5898 online © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd http://www.tandf.eo.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0951839022000014394
712
AUDREY TRAINOR
To be a special education student of color may be doubly jeopardizing to successful postsecondary transition. Using the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) database from the late 1980s, Blackorby and Wagner (1996) found that service provision and outcomes for people with disabilities appear to vary in relation to race. ,t\Thite youth with disabilities obtained employment and wages at higher rates than did African-American and Hispanic youth with disabilities. Access to services that increase successful postsecondary transition is crucial for CLD students. Disproportionate representation in special education continues to be problematic (IDEA, 1997), particularly when the outcomes for CLD students are not comparable to those of White students. Concern about student outcomes has made postsecondary transition a focal point for special education policy and practice. For example) the Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1997 (IDEA) lowered the age at which transition planning should begin from 16 to 14, expanded transition planning provisions to include needed linkages from high school to postsecondary life, and emphasized specific mandates for family and student participation in the design of the individual education plan (IEP), which includes the individual transition plan (ITP). The professional literature is replete with recommendations for teachers to solicit the active participation of both the students with LD and their families during transition planning (Blalock & Patton, 1996; Morningstar, Turnbull, & Turnbull, 1995). Student participation in postsecondary transition planning is referred to as 1 'selfdetermination" (Collett-Klingenberg, 1998; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). By definition, self-determination includes self-knowledge, freedom of choice, and autonomy (Wehmeyer, 1995) and is steeped in the concepts of normalization and independence (Schloss, Alper, &Jayne) 1994). Yet these values, as well as their manifestations (e.g., living outside the family home) as acceptable or preferred outcomes (Blackerby & Wagner, 1996), are culturally relative. Because values can differ both interculturally and intraculturally among community members (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997), CLD students transitioning from special education into adult life may approach this transition with a variety of perspectives and strategies. Additionally, students may maintain different values than those of their parents and families and they must balance the sometimes conflicting demands of home and school. Emphasis on self-determination by researchers and practitioners from the dominant culture may not thoroughly reflect the characteristics of the parent/child relationships in OLD families during transition planning. Numerous researchers, including Harry (1992), Harry, Rueda and Kalyanpur (1999), and Morningstar et al. (1995), have explored issues ofCLD parent participation in the special education process. Since communities and families share cultural values that may differ from those accepted by members of the school community, parent and student perceptions of disability, access to services, and IEP participation must inform preferred practices. We need to understand how to better help individuals plan for postsecondary transi\ion in such a way that they feel competent meeting the demands of the communities in which they choose to live. August and Hakuta (1997) argue fervently for research that examines the impact of dominant culture values on the practice of special education research and service delivery. A review of the literature in self-determination during postsecondary transition for students with LD, as well as the influence of cultural values on this process, reveals gaps of knowledge about postsecondary transition service provision to OLD students and families. Examining the intersection. of cultural values and self-determination in
SELF-DETERMINATION:
A UNIVERSAL
713
VALUE?
postsecondary planning is an important step in improving outcomes for students with LD because increasing students' self-determination has been posited as an important link in helping students with LD experience personal fulfillment and successful adult living (Field, 1996). Yet helping OLD students with LD attain acceptable postsecondary outcomes continues to be problematic, so the question remains: Do practices that focus on self-determination hold the key to success for OLD students?
Self-determination
in the postsecondary
transition
process
One of the most significant developments in the study of postsecondary transition has been the conceptualization, program development, implementation, and assessment of self-determination. Since the publication of the seminal work ofpsyc;;hologists Deci and Ryan (1985), educational researchers and practitioners have been interested in exploring the concepts of self-determination in relation to disability. In fact, legislators and scholars concerned with special education outcomes have invested much effort, as well as resources, in developing ways in which people with disabilities can be selfdetermining. A brief review of self-determination special education literature follows.
Rationalefor promotingself-determination Increasing students' self-determination may increase their success in moving from high school to adult living (Wehmeyer, 1995). For example, studies have demonstrated a close relationship between self-determination and motivation, which may impact students' decisions to drop out of school (Field, 1996). Also, the demands of both postsecondary educational settings and employment involve decision making, choice, goal setting, and self-assessment, which are all components of self-determination (Durlak, Rose, & Bursuck, 1994; Field, 1996). Lastly, career/vocational education, on which transition is historically based, provides a real-life connection between selfdetermination and the curriculum. Students' needs and interests are a natural part of individuals' career development (Wehmeyer, 1995). In addition to the seemingly good fit between promoting self-determination and mitigating negative postsecondary outcomes, special education philosophically supports the idea that individuals with disabilities have the right to be self-determining, as is evidenced in person-centered approaches to educational programming (Bassett & Lehmann, 2002).
Definingcharacteristics of self-determination Broadly defined, self-determination is a person's freedom to make decisions independently (Schloss et al., 1994). Making choices about work, education, and independent living are examples of self-determining behaviors. Wehmeyer (1995) points out that self-determination is linked to the civil/human rights of people with disabilities, as they must be free to make the same choices as people without disabilities. Of course, the concept is complex because embedded in the freedom to make choices are acquired skills and attitudes that people use when exercising this freedom (Field, 1996). Although self-determination has been defined extensively throughout special education literature (Field, 1996; Schloss et al., 199'1; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997),
714
AUDREY TRAINOR
choice, decision making, and goal attainment are common threads across definitions. Definitions have typically focused on choice free from excessive influence. Wehmeyer (1995) terms this "causal agency," which means people can make choices and decisions that result in events occurring in their lives. A key focus is autonomy and control. In addition to autonomy and choice/decision making, the idea that students with LD must act on their decisions and learn from the resulting outcomes and experiences is also addressed by each definition of self-determination. Evaluating self, acting on self-evaluation, and self-regulating are central components of self-determination models (Hoffman & Field, 1995; Martin & Huber-Marshall, 1995). Self-advocacy is also frequently mentioned during discussions on self-determination, yet self-advocacy and self-determination are not one and the same; rather, the former is a subskill of the latter (Field, 1996). In other words, in order to be self-determining, one must advocate for one's own needs.
Self-determinationmodels During the early 1990s a variety of self-determination model programs and research projects were developed (Field, 1996). Many models were developed as curricula that promoted student participation in the special education process. Well-known programs such as CboiceMaker (Martin & Huber-Marshall, 1995) focused on increasing student knowledge oflife skills, vocational information, self-awareness, and participation during IEP and ITP meetings. Promoting self-determination by including students in transition planning activities is commonly used as an instructional tool to increase students' knowledge and application of postsecondary strategies and skills.
Existing gaps in the self-determination literature
postsecondary
transition
Despite the overwhelming support by people with disabilities, legislators, scholars, and educators, gaps in our knowledge about self-determination do exist (Field, 1996). Empirical support of the implementation of best transition practices or mandated 1998; Lehmann, Bassett & student participation is sparse (Collet-Klingenberg, Sands, 1999). Also, the original focus by researchers on the development of self-determination was noncategorical (Field, 1996); therefore, key information regarding students with LD and self-determination is missing. Best practices and model programs commonly address instructional strategies for self-determination, yet implementation of postsecondary transition services varies according to the extent to which professionals emphasize the importar1ce of transition and the availability of resources (Hasazi, Furney, & Destafano, 1999). Another substantial gap in the self-determination literature, and the topic of concern addressed here, is the efficacy of self-determination models and methods for CLD students and their families. The premise that self-determination is a crucial postsecondary skill has been determined by the measurer~_ent of outcomes such as employability, enrollment in postsecondary education programs, and residential independence. ,t\Thile the ability to earn a living and the ability to pursue higher education do impact transition to adult living, the extent to which people pursue both residential and financial independence may be determined by cultural values
SELF-DETERMINATION:
A UNIVERSAL
VALUE?
715
regarding the family unit and interdependence among its members. Including diverse groups of participants has the potential to inform theory and practice regarding the impact of self-determination on adult success. Specifically, current research leaves three important questions unanswered: Is selfdetermination, measured largely by postsecondary residential and financial independence, an important benchmark of transition success for all students? To what extent do existing models of self-determination incorporate knowledge and theory generated r-ot by cultural studies of parent-child interaction, child development, and cross-cultural communication styles? How do GLD students and families respond to self-determination models of instruction?
Self-determinationas a benchmark One outcome study measured students' self-determination prior to graduation and again following graduation (Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). Participants in this study were identified as having either LD or mental retardation. These researchers concluded that participants in the "high self-determination group," as defined by assessment scores on the ARC's Self-determinationScaleand other assessment tools, were more likely to be employed, as well as receive higher wages 1 than were participants in the "low self-determination group" one year after high school. They found no significant differences between the two groups in enrollment in postsecondary education or residential independence. Parent reports of student outcomes did reflect that students who were considered to have high levels of self-determination expressed a desire to live on their own more frequently than did students with low self-determination. VVhile Wehmeyer and Schwartz (1997) do acknowledge that using parent reports of students' postsecondary outcomes may be problematic, they do not address issues regarding cultural values and identities of the students and parents they assessed and surveyed. Conclusions regarding the importance of self-determination and postsecondary transition for CLD students with LD cannot be made with confidence.
GLD students' andfamilies' responsesto self-determinationmodels Infrequent reporting of the ethnicity of the student and family participants has created another gap in our understanding of self-determination. In 1995, Interventionin School and Clinic published a special issue on self-determination models. Programs such as ChoiceMaker (Martin & Huber-Marshall, 1995) and The Road to Personal Freedom (Ludi & Martin, 1995), were two of the self-determination models presented. These descriptions, however, generally omitted any reference to the cultural and linguistic identities of the participants. This lack of information creates serious questions as to the applicability of these models for groups of people who may maintain a range of values regarding the concept of self-determination. Even when reported, data may not be analyzed by ethnicity and/or the cultural identity of participants. For example 1 Wehmeyer and Lawrence (1995) assessed students' self-determination and implemented a model program in which students with disabilities, whose ethnicities were reported, received training in component self-determination skills including self-awareness; goal setting, and ITP meeting leadership. Once the training, entitled "VVhose Future is it Anyway?" was complete,
716
AUDREY TRAINOR
students were reassessed on a wide range of self-determination measures to determine the impact of the program. While Wehmeyer and Lawrence (1995) concluded that the program did impact students' level of self-determination, though not in a statistically significant way, we do not know if or how this impact varied according to ethnicity. Perhaps variation by ethnicity of participants did not occur, yet elements of the model, such as instruction in assertive communication, make the question pertinent since communication styles may vary according to cultural identity. Furthermore, questions regarding the cultural values of the parents and the students, both presumably involved in transition planning, need to be examined before the appropriateness of such an intervention can be determined. Obtaining reactions of student and parent participants would also be invaluable. Hoffman and Field (1995) developed a model of self-determination that includes two major domains: individual and environmental. Their model reflects the interaction between a person's knowledge) skills) and values (internal factors) and the environmental opportunities for choice (external factors). In order to address the external factors, implementation of the model includes training for family members. This model was field tested in one urban, racially diverse high school and one suburban, predominantly White high school. Comparing the effects of the program using a treatment and control group, the researchers judged the efficacy of the model by administering two standardized self-determination measures and concluded that the model was an effective way to help students gain self-determination skills. As has been the case with most self-determination studies, detailed information regarding the efficacy of the model for CLD students was not reported.
Culturally relative knowledge
and theory and self-
determination
The development of self-determination competencies implies students becoming actively involved in the ITP planning process, yet we do not know how comfortable students or families are with this concept (Miner & Bates, 1997). This may be particularly true for CLD families who may approach the special education process differently than teachers expect (Bailey, Skinner, Rodriguez, Gut, & Correa, 1999). For example, teachers often maintain the misperception that CLD parents who do not come to school, attend meetings, and correspond in writing are not vested in the educational needs of their children (Voltz, 1994-).Researchers have found, however, that passivity and compliance (via signatures on special education papers) are signs of resignation and feelings of powerlessness in response to frustration with the special education system rather than neglectful attitudes toward children's needs (Harry, 1992). Researchers studying self-determination point out that actively involving students in IEP/ITP meetings is appropriate for many reasons (Blalock & Patton, 1996; Hoffman & Field, 1995; Wehmeyer, !995). A variety ofrequisite knowledge and skills contribute to the concept of self-det~}~1ination, including self-awareness and acceptance, goal setting, decision making, and self-advocacy. VVhile the argument in favor of such involvement is strong, however, scholars cannot ignore the fact that appropriateness of self-determination for adolescents may differ among CLD groups. Models of self-determinatioh during postsecondary transition are one part of the special education process, which itself is. driven by underlying cultural values. Self-
SELF-DETERMINATION:
A UNIVERSAL
VALUE?
717
determination models fundamentally engage issues of cultural identity. Incorporating research regarding dominant-culture perspectives in special education, child development, parent-child relationships, and dominant-culture setting demands, as each relates to disability, into the discussion regarding self-determination and postsecondary transition for CLD students with LD is crucial. ·"'.'
Dominant
values embedded
in special education philosophy
Special education is a field driven by the philosophical underpinnings of dominant American values. These values are embedded in legislation that guides the practice of special education. Emphasis on self-determination throughout the special education process, in particular postsecondary transition, is a manifestation of cultural values. Embedded values include normalization and independence (Harry, 1992), as well as autonomy and equity (Harry et al., 1999). The language of both IDEA 1997 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1992, addressing self-determination, explicitly focuses on these key values. While no one would likely argue that these values have not substantially increased the quality oflife for individuals with disabilities, acknowledging that not all groups of people prioritize them in the same way is important. Ludi artd Martin (1995) acknowledge that self-determination may have differing meanings based on cultural identity and type of disability. They conclude, however, "culture itself does not alter the meaning of self-determination, but it is likely to change some of the characteristics developed and the manner in which that development takes place" (p.165). Understanding that all members of our diverse society do not share identical values is essential if we are going to truly honor the spirit of Inclivicluals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997) by including parent and student participation throughout the transition from school to postsecondary life. The complexity with which cultural mores and traditions drive life-transitions is significant. The ultimate goal of transition planning is for students to experience personal fulfillment as adults living in the community of their choosing (Blalock & Patton, 1996). While all humans experience vertical transitions through the aging process (e.g. 1 physical maturation during puberty), horizontal transitions, such as marriage, are not universal (Blalock & Patton, 1996).
Autonomy and independence The philosophy that people have the right to be autonomous is a driving force in special education and the promotion of self-determination (Wehmeyer, 1995). Although the ability to think and act independently is one demand of adulthood, the independence with which people function is intertwined with their cultural identities. Within all societies, values that guide social interaction, communication, and survival are points on a continuum of individuality and collectivity. Individualism and self-reliance are distinct cultural values relative to self-determination that may or may not be shared by all members ofour diverse nation (Harry et al., 1999). Elements of transition planning and self-determination, such as moving into an independent residence or leaving home to pursue postsecondary educational opportunities, are influenced by this orientation.
718
AUDREY TRAINOR
In dominant American culture, value judgments about orientation toward independence are positive and considered ideal. Interdependence, however, is considered less than desirable (Greenfield, 1994). Throughout the literature self-determination is stated as an ideal, something to be taught to both children and their parents, something that will make people with disabilities live better lives. Yet, the standards regarding when and to what extent people are self-determining have originated from people in the dominant, independence-valuing culture. What we do not know is when and to what extent CLD people from other points on the continuum of interdependence/independence agree with these priorities.
Equity Postsecondary transition and self-determi1tation are additionally couched in the belief that all people are valuable members ofsoCiety and maintain equal status (Harry et al., 1999). For many people who identify with cultural and ethnic groups other than the dominant group, hierarchical relationships take precedence over equity (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997). Thus during IEP/ITP meetings parents and students may vary in their level of comfort in accepting a central planning role, especially if they view educators as having higher status. This will likely influence the scope of their participation, as well as their expectations of one another. Parents may be uncomfortable allowing their child to play a leadership role in a meeting of adults and professionals (Miner & Bates, 1997). Equal status of IEP/ITP team members means that the input of each is a significant driving force behind final decisions. If parents come from cultures which value hierarchical structure, the idea that they or their children have the right and responsibility to advocate for their needs to professionals of higher status than their own may be foreign to them (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999). While due process is designed to protect the rights of people with disabilities, it is heavily embedded in the cultural values of equity (Harry, 1992). An underlying role expectation of parents and selfdetermining students is that they understand the system and use it to their advantage (Kalyanpur & Harry 1 1999). If parents view teachers and administrators as individuals with high status and expertise, they may feel uncomfortable demanding that schools comply with special education law. Furthermore, they may not agree with putting their children in positions of self-determination and self-advocacy. Although Field (1996) suggests that when parents step into the role of advocate, they may thwart their children's efforts of self-determination, CLD parents may have reservations about putting their children in this role .
.Normalization Emphasis on postsecondary transition underscores its significance in American edu~ational culture. Students with disabilities a1%,,encouraged to take on the roles and responsibilities that are considered "normal" during specific developmental stages. For example, in the dominant culture of American society, adolescents are expected to accept responsibility, establish self-control, and respond to an internal locus of .control (Michaels, 1994). Questioning authority, establishing close ties with peers, and desiring independence are also associated with typical adolescent development (V\Tehmeyer, 1995). Yet, developmental milestones are norm-referenced rather than absolute (Deyhle & LeCompte, 1999). The way that one individual or group moves
SELF-DETERMINATION:
A UNIVERSAL
VALUE?
719
from one stage of development to the next, which is influenced by a variety of factors including culture, should not be used as a guide, timetable, or model for another group of people (Gay, 1999). As a result CLD parents may have different behavioral expectations of their teenagers than do members of the dominant group. An example of normalization in the transition process is the encouragement and preparation of students to maintain a household separate from one's family. In followup studies, residential independence is used to measure how students have transitioned to adulthood (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). Depending on the degree to which students identify with their home cultures, the goal of securing and maintaining a household independently may or may not be appropriate. Ifwe use residential independence as a marker of success, we make an assumption that cultural values of the White, middle class are universally desirable. Special education literature has been informative in defining self-determination as the freedom to choose a:ricl make decisions. Literature that addresses the cultural relevancy of student and family participation in the educational process can inform our understanding of the appropriateness of self-determination models for the CLD population. Clearly, self-determination and cultural values cannot be separated.
Potential contributions of qualitative determination research
research
methods
to self-
Special education research has focused on characteristic needs and strengths of people with disabilities in the dominant group resulting in possible areas of mismatch between the system and the families it aims to serve (August & Hakuta, 1997). Qualitative methods of inquiry can be particularly useful in providing insight to cultural values and interpersonal interactions (l\!Iertens & l\licLaughlin, 1995). Studies of th'eefficacy of self-determination during postsecondary transition planning have generally omitted the perspectives of CLD students, who should be key players on the transition planning team. Ifwe want students to have vested interests in their futures and maintain active roles in goal attainment, gaining a better understanding of how they react to services that reflect self-determination models is essential. Four qualitative studies have examined student perceptions of self-determination and related postsecondary transition planning issues. These studies, their focus, participants, and summary results are listed in Table I. Although each of these investigations adds important information to the selfdetermination knowledge base, further study is necessary to more comprehensively understand CLD students' perceptions regarding self-determination and their participation in special education transition planning. As can be seen in Table 1, CLD students were either not included or were included in small numbers. VVithout indepth inquiry into the preferences and practices of CLD students' and their families' ways of characterizing and addressing LD, we cannot determine the appropriateness or the efficacy of existing models which essentially address the needs and strengths of White students. Current efforts must focus on the preferences of a broader group of students and their families. Qualitative research provides an avenue of expression for people whose voices have been either disregarded or misrepresented. In the case of postsecondary transition, factors other than disability, such as race 1 socioeconomic status, and gender, all of which contribute to cultural identity, impact the success with which adolescents attain
Table I.
Studies of students'
perceptions
of self-determination-related
issues and postsecondary
transition
planning.
___, ,_, 0
Author
Participants
Study focus
Qualitative method
Results
Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff (2000)
Participant perspectives of transition program that required students to use self-determination strategies and actively participate in the transition planning process
45 adolescents with LD, mental retardation (MR), emotional disabilities (ED), & other disabilities; 38 White, 2 Hispanic, 3 Asian, 2 Native American; Male N= 27 Female N= 18
Participants selected using purposive sampling; six focus group interviews were conducted; moderator and two note takers used an interview guide with each group; audio data and field notes were analyzed
Participants viewed the transition program favorably and specifically mentioned the benefits of goal setting and personal choice. Students' levels of self-confidence appeared to be positively impacted
Lehmann, Bassett, & Sands (1999)
Student participation in transition planning activities
12 high school students; 7 'VVhiteand 5 Hispanic, 9 with mild/moderate disabilities, 3 -with severe disabilities; MaleN=B Female N= 4
Participants selected using purposive sampling, interview and observation data were collected and organized by theme
Students were reluctant to share their feelings, defetTed to their parents, ·and appeared uninvolved in the transition planning processes
Morningstar, Turnbull, & Turnbull (1995)
Student perceptions of family involvement in transition planning
40 adolescents with LD, behavioral disorders (BD), & mild MR; 35 White, 4 Hispanic, 1 Afii.can American; gender not reported
Participants selected using purposive sampling, focus groups met for two hours -with a moderator and observer team, data from audiocassettes and field notes were analyzed
Students reported family involvement both hindered and facilitated self-determination Some students felt competent as decision makers; others discussed consequences of decisions
15 White, middle-class adolescents -with LD; MalcN= 13 Female N= 2
Standardized, open-ended interview data, field notes and observation data were collected and analyzed
Students reacted positively to the program and stated its usefulness in accessing services
f '.
Phlllips (1990)
Disability and selfawareness as part of self-advocacy skill training
~ ~
">< ,.;
I
SELF-DETERMINATION:
A UNIVERSAL
721
VALUE?
mainstream success in adulthood. Pugach (2001) urges special education researchers not to shy away from issues of equity and power. Postsecondary transition outcomes for CLD students, with and without disabilities, cannot be equated with those of their VVhitepeers. Disparities in dropout rates, employment rates, wages, and enrollment in postsecondary educational programs are compounded by societal problems such as racism, as well as issues related to disability. Special educators and researchers can use qualitative methods to embrace a more critical approach to the study of postsecondal'y outcomes. By definition, transition planning must be individualized. The strength of qualitative, methods lies in their ability to describe the diverse needs that must be addressed to facilitate outcomes for unique constituencies (Patton, 1990). Individual transition planning teams are fertile ground for intercultural interactions. Culturally and linguistically diverse families may struggle with the individualistic nature of self-, determination models, such as a pervasive emphasis on independence and choice. As teachers read qualitative narratives, they gain a more intimate understanding of the participants' perspectives as they construct meaning from the text (Anzul, Evans, King, & Teller-Robinson, 2001). To a great extent, students' level of self-determination is dictated by their own understanding of personal strengths, weaknesses, and disability label. Decisions they make during postsecondary transition are related to how well they know themselves. Qualitative studies, which characteristically include rich descriptions of context, can provide necessary clues about students' sociocultures (Pugach, 2001). A holistic approach, chaPacteristic of qualitative research, allows the participants and the researcher to examine the complexities of diversity from a multitude of angles, not solely from within the walls of the school (Patton, 1990). For example, researchers may find that opportunities for self-determination initiated by parents may fall outside of the traditional benchmarks of residential independence or individualistic choicemaking strategies. VVithout directly talking to adolescents, our understanding of self-determination is limited to adult perceptions of the concept and its implementation. If we expect students to lead ITP meetings, self-disclose strengths and weaknesses, and ask for services and accommodation, we need to understand how they feel about carrying out these tasks. Some students with LD may not feel comfortable in the position of publicly discussing their strengths and needs. 1vioreover, much has been made of low self-esteem, failure experiences, and students with LD. Could low self-esteem prevent students from exercising their right to be self-determining? How do conflicts resulting from differing cultural identities of OLD parents and their children impact self-determination practices? If we do not examine these questions, or if we limit our examination to quantitative data such as scores from self-determination assessments, we usurp power from students with LD and force them to participate in postsecondary transition according to adult preferences. Qualitative interviewing can illuminate inequity between child and adult and help determine appropriate ways to balance power (Eder & Fingerson, 2001).
Implications
for research
and practice
Both researchers and practitioners need to increase their awareness of the impact dominant-culture values have on CLD students and families. Special education
722
AUDREY TRAINOR
literature is replete with references to issues involving parent participation. Even parents who are members of the dominant culture, and who share the values and beliefs embedded in special education, transition planning, and self-determination, experience difficulties. For members of groups outside dominant U.S. culture, these difficulties can be more pronounced. To complicate matters, teachers, the majority of whom are members of the dominant group, may not identify with CLD families or understand their unique needs. Recent legislation such as IDEA (1997) and special education literature, however, emphasizes that parents and students are invaluable members of the transition planning process. Therefore, special educators have a unique opportunity, a mandate really, to address the disparities between the home and school cultures. Utilizing self-determination in the practice of postsecondary transition will require teachers to respond to the precepts of positive multicultural education: self-awareness, awareness of diverse cultures, empathy, and valuation of diversity. Numerous education scholars have called for practices that require teachers to be introspective regarding their own beliefs and to reflect how those values determine their approaches to working with parents (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999; Wolfe, Boone, & Barrera, 1997). Self-awareness can augment teachers 1 abilities to recognize that values and beliefs they hold are not universal. Other scholars have stressed the importance of valuing diverse approaches to parenting and participation in the special education process (Singh, Ellis, Oswald, V\Techsler, & Curtis, 1997). Awareness and understanding of diverse cultures and struggles that result from existing in a society in which power is not distributed equally among groups is also crucial (Voltz, 1994). Moreover, the use of self-determination strategies and models must require teachers to return to the ideal inherent in this concept: choice. This requires ITP team members to acknowledge that CLD children must feel comfortable in the balance they find between home and school. CLD adolescents may or may nofhave goals of financial and residential independence for the first year following graduation. Similarly, they may or may not be comfortable going to college away from home immediately following high school. Research has the potential to inform practice. To date, self-determination research has promoted the idea that adolescent development is universally suited to self-determination practices. Research on culturally relevant issues in education informs us differently. From this body of work, we learn that development is not universal and that values embraced by one group may be rejected by another. Models of sdf-determination in the transition process must be expanded to include cultural components. While Hoffman and Field (1995), do include external and internal factors influencing self-determination, the impact of cultural identity is not clearly depicted. Much of the research on self-determination has not taken into considercition the cultural backgrounds of the participants. We need to study the participation ofCLD students and families in the postsecondary transition process to learn more about the st~ategies they employ, their level of comfort with self-determination practices, and the needs they want addressed. We know that the best transition efforts are capacity building (Blalock & Patton, 1996), thus it is crucial to consider the individual strengths and needs of individual students in transition. In so doing, we follow both best practices and legislative mandates. One specific aspect of self-determination research, the promotion of student-led IEP/ITP meetings, needs to be carefully considered. Although many self-determination models address this manifestation of the concept, discussions of these models seem
SELF-DETERMINATION:
A UNIVERSAL
VALUE?
723
to omit consideration of the fact that decisions made at IEP/ITP meetings are far reaching, may involve mediating the differing opinions of professionals and family members, and require participants to be knowledgeable and vocal about their interpretation of the special education process (Daniel, 2000). While models address self-knowledge 1 disability awareness, and understanding one's rights and responsibilities, discussion regarding the efficacy with which adolescents can be expected to master these requisites is absent from the literature. The work of special education scholars who are interested in issues of cultural identity in this process has demonstrated that participation for parents is sometimes so difficult that nominal compliance is practiced. Students may or may not encounter these same difficulties. Perhaps students, who have had more interaction with the demands of the dominant culture, will be more comfortable with IEP /ITP meeting participation. Will this comfort level be mitigated by their efforts to fulfill the demands of their home culture, as they collaborate with their parents, or their school culture, as they collaborate with their teachers? How can students fulfill the demands of both settings simultaneously? Both researchers and practitioners support self-determination and transition planning. Evidence that parents, in particular CLD parents, support self-determination is sparse. Even if CLD parents, such as the Hispanic mothers in the study by Morningstar et al. (1995), do support this concept, differing ideas exist about the roles and responsibilities for teaching it to children. The fact that the vast majority of research has been conducted by, from the perspective of, and about the dominant group (Greenfield, 1994), means that we do not really know the preferences, expectations, and needs of CLD families. The driving force behind increased attention to the subject must be consideration for the outcomes of CLD students with LD who are transitioning to adulthood. Outcome studies, reflecting a disparity between CLD people with and without disabilities, and their opportunities for employment, education, and personal fulfillment, make this subject especially deserving of attention.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr Alba Ortiz and Dr Jim R. Patton for their support and advice on the preparation of this paper.
References Anzul, M., Evans,J. F., King, R., & Teller-Robinson, D. (2001). Moving beyond a deficit perspective with qualitative research methods. ExceptionalChildren,67, 235~264. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Assessment. In Improvingsclwolingfor language~minoriry children:A researchagenda(pp. 113-125). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. i" Bailey, D.Jr., Skinner, D., Rodriguez, P., Gut, D., & Correa, V. (1999). Awarertess, use, and satisfaction with services for Latino parents of young children with disabilities. ExceptionalChildren,65, 367-381. Bassett, D. S., & Lehmann, J. (2002). Student..Jocused conferencingand planning.Austin, TX: ProEd. Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. ExceptionalChildren,66, 509-529. Blackorby,J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. ExceptionalChildren,62, 399-4-13. Blalock, G., & Patton, J. R. (1996). Transition and students with learning disabilities: Creating sound futures. Leaming DisabilitiesResearch& Practice,29(1), 7-16.
724
AUDREY TRAINOR
Collet-lingenberg, L. L. (1998). The reality of best practices in transitions: A case study. Excej;tiona.l Children, 65, 67-78. Daniel, P. T. K. (2000). Education for students with special needs: The judicially defined role of parents in the process. Journal of Law & Education, 29(1), 1-30. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivationand self-determinationin human behavior.New York: Plenum Press. Deyhle, D., & LeCompte, M. (1999). Cultural differences in child development: Navajo adolescents in middle schools. In R. I-I. Sheets & E. R. Hollins (Eds.), Racial and ethnicidentii)'in schoolpractices(pp.
23-139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Durlak, C. M., Rose, E., & Bursuck, W. D. ( 1994). Preparing high school students with learning disabilities for the transition to postsecondary education: Teaching the skills of self-determination. Journal of LearningDisabilities,27, 51-59. Eder, D., & Fingerson, L. (2002). Interviewing childre~1and adolescents. In G.F. Gubrium &J.A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbookofinterviewresearch.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Field, S. (1996). Self-deierminat.ion instructional strategies for youth with learning disabilities. In JR. Patton & G. Blalock (Eds), Transition and students with learningdisabilities:Facilitatine movementfi'om schoolio adult life (pp. 61-84). Austin, TX: ProEd. ''>' Gay, G. (1999). Ethnic identity development and multicultural education. In R.H. Sheets & E.R. Hollins (Eds.), Racial and ethnicidentity in schoolpractices(pp. 195-211 ). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Greene, G., & Nefsky, P. (1999). Transition for culturally and linguistically diverse youth with disabilities: Closing the gaps. Multiple Voices,3(1), 15-24, Greenfield, P. M. (1994·). Independence and interdependence as Pevelopmental scripts: Implications for theory, research, and practice. In P.M. Greenfield & R.R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-culturalroots ef minorit)'child development(pp. 1-37). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gudykunst, ,,v.B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1997). Communicatingwith strangers:An aptJroach to interculturalcommunication (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hany, B. (1992). Culturaldiversily,Jamilies,and the specialeducationSJ'Stem.New York: Teachers College Press. Harry, B., Rueda, R., & Kalyanpur, M. (1999). Cultural reciprocity in sociocultural perspective: Adapting the normalization principle for family collaboration. ExceptionalChildren,66, 123-136. I-lasazi, S. B., Furney, K. S., & Destefano, L. (1999). Implementing IDEA transition mandates. Exceptional Children,65, 555-556. Hoffman, A., & Field, S. (1995). P~·omoting self-determination through effective curriculum development. Interventionin Schooland Clinic, 30, 134-141. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C.A. MM et seq. relationKalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culturein specialeducation:Building recipracalfamibi-professional ships. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks. Lehmann, J. P., Bassett, D. S., & Sands, D. J. ( 1999). Students' participation in transition-related actions. Remedialand SpecialEducation,20, 160-169. Ludi, D. C., & Martin, L. (1995). The road to personal freedom: Self-determination. Interventionin Schooland Clinic, 30, 164-169. Martin,]. E., & Huber-Marshall, L. H. (1995). Choicemaker: A comprehensive self-determination transition program. Interveniianin Schooland Clinic, 30, 14·7-156. Mertens, D. M., & McLaughlin, J. A. (1995). Researchmethodsin specialeducation.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Michaels, C. A. (Ed.). (1994). Transition, adolescence, and learning disabilities. In Transition.rtrategiesfor personswith teaming disabilities(pp. 1-22). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group. Miner, C. A., & Bates, P. E. ( 1997, June). The effect of person centered planning activities on the IEP / transition planning process. Educationand Training in A.fentalRetardationand DevelopmentalDisabilities, 105-112. ·Morningstar, M. E., Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (1995). What do students with disabilities tell us about the importance of family involvement in the transition from school to adult life? Exceptional Children,62, 249-260. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Racial/ethnic distribution of public school students. Retrieved August 22, 2001, from httjJ:j/nces.ed.gov/fJrograms/coe/2001/sectionl/tahles/t03_].!ttml Patton, M. Q (1990). Qualitativeevaluation(J.ndresearchmethods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Phillips, P. (1990). A self-advocacy plan for high school students with learning disabilities: A comparative case study analysis of students', teachers', and parents' perceptions of program effects. Journal ef Leaming Disabilities,23, 466-471. ;Fugach, M. C. (2001). The stories we choose to tell: Fulfilling the promise of qualitative research for special education. ExcejJtionalChildren,67, 4·39--4·53. Schloss, P. J., Alper, S., & Jayne, D. (1994). Self-detennination for persons with disabilities: Choice, risk, and dignity. ExceptionalChildren,60, 215-255. Singh, N. N., Ellis, C.R., Oswald, D. P., , 1Vechsler, H. A., & Curtis, W. J. (1997)_.Value and address diversity. Journal ofEmotionaland BehaviorDisorders,5, 24-35.
SELF-DETERMINATION:
A UNIVERSAL
VALUE?
725
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). The twenty-secondannual report to congresson the implementationof the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Voltz, D. L. (199•}).Developing collaborative parent-teacher relationships with culturally diverse parents. Inter111mtion in Schooland Clinic, 29, 288-291. Wehmeyer, M. (1995). A career education approach: Self-determination for youth with mild cognitive disabilities. Interventionin Schooland Clinic, 30, 157-163. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Lawrence, M. (1995). Whose future is it anyway? Promoting student involvement in transition planning. CareerDevelopment,18, 69-83. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. ExceptionalChildren,63, 245-255. Wolfe, P. S., Boone, R. S., & Barrera, M. (1997). Developing culturally sensitive transition plans: A reflective process. Journalfor VocationalSpecialNeeds Education,30(1), 30-33.
