CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 29/NO. 1/2006/PP.

2847 28

Issues in Transition Planning:

Legal Decisions

SUSAN ETSCHEIDT
The purpose of this article is to identify legal issues concerning the
transition planning process through a qualitative analysis of adminis-
trative and judicial decisions addressing transition services for students
with disabilities. The issues that emerged from the analysis were cate-
gorized into five prevalent themes: agency contacts, student involve-
ment, individualization of the transition plan, district obligations, and
appropriateness of the transition plan. The themes included both
procedural and substantive components. Changes in the newly reau-
thorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act are discussed,
and implications for policy and practice are presented.

tifying courses of study by the time the child reaches 14

T
he successful transition of students with disabili-
ties from school to postschool environments is a
priority for both parents and school districts.
When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) was reauthorized in 1997, the purpose of the
legislation was to ensure that all children with disabili-
ties have available to them a free appropriate public ed-
ucation (FAPE) that emphasizes special education and
related services designed to meet their unique needs and
prepare them for employment and independent living
(20 U.S.C. 1401(d)(1)(A)). Transition services were
defined as a coordinated set of activities designed with
an outcome-oriented process to promote the childs
movement from school to postschool activities. These
services might include postsecondary education, voca-
tional training, integrated employment, continuing and
adult education, adult services, independent living, or
community participation (20 U.S.C. 1401(30)(A)).
The services were to be planned on the basis of the
students needs, preferences, and interests (20 U.S.C.
1401(30)(B)) and may include instruction, related
services, community experiences, the development of
employment or postschool adult living objectives, ac-
quisition of daily living skills, or functional vocational
evaluation (20 U.S.C. 1401(20)(C)). Transition ser-
vices were to be specified in the students Individualized
Education Program (IEP). IDEA required that IEP teams
address the transition services needs of a child by iden-
years of age and by developing interagency responsibil-
ities or linkages by the time the child reaches 16 years of
age (20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(A)(vii)).
IDEAs focus on transition represents an acknowl-
edgment of and continuous efforts to improve the low
graduation rates and dismal postschool achievements
of students with disabilities (Blackorby & Wagner,
1996). Yet achieving these mandates has been slow and
inconsistent, as evidenced by the difficulties young
adults with disabilities face in securing postsecondary
success (Johnson, Stodden, Emanuel, Luecking, & Mack,
2002). In response to these difficulties, the 2004 reau-
thorization of IDEA changed the definition of transi-
tion services from an outcome-oriented process to a
results-oriented process that is focused on improving
the academic and functional achievement of the child
(20 U.S.C. 1414(c)(5)(B)(ii)). The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA
2004) also requires the IEP team to include appropri-
ate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age-
appropriate transition assessments related to training,
education, employment, and, where appropriate, inde-
pendent living skills (20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)
(aa)) and to specify the transition services (including
courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching
those goals (20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)(bb)).
The local education agency must also provide a sum-
 CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 29/NO. 1/2006
mary of the childs academic and functional perfor-
mance when IDEA services are terminated due to grad-
uation or age-eligibility (20 U.S.C. 1414(c)(B)(ii)).
These changes included in IDEA 2004 are clear efforts
to improve postsecondary outcomes for students with
disabilities.
Implementing these transition mandates is a com-
plex and multidimensional process (Hasazi, Furney, &
DeStefano, 1999). Many parents have been dissatisfied
with the transition planning process and have sought
judicial relief. As a result, the adequacy of transition ser-
vices for students with disabilities currently represents a
significant area of litigation. The purpose of this article
is to identify the issues of concern through an analysis
of administrative and judicial decisions addressing tran-
sition services for students with disabilities.
METHOD
The analysis was conducted to discern issues concern-
ing transition plans addressed in administrative and
judicial decisions. Published decisions from adminis-
trative hearings, district courts, and appellate courts
were accessed from an online database, LRP Education
Research Library. This database includes decisions that
are published in the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-
tion Law Report (IDELR). The database was searched
from 1997, when transition requirements were amended
in a reauthorization of IDEA, through the December
2004 reauthorization. The topical index was accessed,
and cases indexed under the subject transition plan/
transition services were reviewed. A separate search of
the database using the general descriptors of transition
plan, transition services, and transition yielded a total of
36 cases. Cases pertaining to transitions from an Indi-
vidualized Family Service Plan (ISFP) to an IEP or tran-
sitions from one placement to another were omitted.
Only those decisions addressing school-to-postschool
transition plans and processes were included.
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS
The purposive sample for this policy analysis repre-
sented 36 published decisions from predominately
state-level administrative decisions (n = 31), with 5 dis-
trict court rulings. The students involved in the cases
were described by primary disability, which consisted of
mental disabilities (n = 8), learning disabilities (n = 5),
29
emotional or behavioral disorders (n = 4), autism or As-
perger syndrome (n = 4), multiple disabilities (n = 4),
physical disabilities (n = 3), other health impaired (n = 2),
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (n = 2), trau-
matic brain injury (n = 1), and other or unspecified (n =
3). The majority of decisions involved male students (n =
24), with females less represented (n = 12). Each case
was read by the author, who identified key words and
phrases concerning transition plans or transition proc-
esses. Examples of key words and phrases were outside
agencies, individualized, provided a free and appropriate
public education (FAPE), procedural errors, and student
invited. Four categories emerged from repeated read-
ings of the cases and an ongoing analysis of key words
and phrases. The author further defined the categories
through a constant comparative method (LeCompte &
Preissle, 1993; Patton, 2001) and coded the cases by cat-
egories and subcategories as the analysis progressed.
Following individual case analyses, a cross-case analysis
was conducted, in which the categories and subcate-
gories identified for each case were compared and con-
trasted across all cases included in the analysis.
RESULTS
The issues involved in transition planning were catego-
rized into five prevalent themes: agency contacts, stu-
dent involvement, individualization of the transition
plan, district obligations, and appropriateness of the
transition plan.
Agency Contacts
IDEA requires IEP teams to involve other agencies that
may provide or pay for transition services during both
school and postschool (34 C.F.R. 300.344(b)(3)(i)). If
an agency that has been invited to send a representative
to a meeting does not do so, the IEP team should take
other steps to obtain participation of the agency in the
planning of any transition services (34 C.F.R. 300.344(b)
(3)(i)). Failure to invite agencies to IEP meetings has re-
sulted in decisions against school districts (see Appen-
dix). The decisions designated as SEA in the Agency
Contacts section of the Appendix represent administra-
tive due process decisions. Those decisions with ED des-
ignations are district court decisions.
In Independent School District No. 0011, Anoka-
Hennepin (2000), parents procuring the services of a
county social worker did not relieve the school district
30 CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 29/NO. 1/2006
of its obligation to invite representatives of other agen-
cies that might be involved in paying for or providing
transition services. The hearing officer concluded that
despite independent contacts initiated by parents, the
school district is obligated to invite representatives and
must take steps to obtain and ensure participation of
other agencies in the planning and transition process
(102 LRP 7,054). The administrative law judge in Wash-
ington Township Board of Education (1999) determined
that the school district failed to invite agencies likely to
provide or pay for transition services for a 20-year-old
student with multiple disabilities, nor did the district
attempt to put [the students] parents in contact with
[the agency] (102 LRP 11891).
Although invitations must be extended, scheduling
conflicts may preclude attendance by agency represen-
tatives. The IEP, however, must document both the con-
tact and any agreed-upon services. In Travis Pace v. the
Bogalusa City School Board (2001), the parents alleged
that the school district had not invited other agencies to
the students transition planning meetings. The district
court held that the school district had contacted ap-
propriate state and local agencies to assist in providing
transition services, although scheduling conflicts had
prevented a rehabilitation counselor from attending the
meetings. The IEP had included responsibilities de-
scribed as school action steps and family action steps tal costs of college attendance, and tutorial services. In
pertaining to transition services. The administrative law
judge in Fulton County School System (1999) clarified
that failure to invite outside agencies to transition plan-
ning would be violative only if it actually results in sub-
stantial deprivation to the student (29 IDELR 1031).
Because the parents in this case had refused services
from the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, it
was not likely that the Department would be responsi-
ble for providing or paying for the students transition
services. Moreover, the district had coordinated with
the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation and other
agencies in addressing the students postschool needs.
School districts must invite agencies that may pro-
vide or pay for transition services to IEP meetings. If
representatives are unable to attend, the school district
must take other steps to obtain participation and coor-
dination of services.
Student Involvement
IDEA Amendments of 1997 specifically required that all
students ages 14 years and older who receive special ed-
ucation and related services be invited to attend IEP
meetings to plan transition services (34 C.F.R. 300.344
(b)(1)). If the student does not attend, the school dis-
trict must take other steps to ensure that the students
preferences and interests are considered (4 C.F.R.
300.344(b)(2)). The decisions addressing student
input are presented in the Appendix. Analysis revealed
that an absence of good faith efforts to involve students
in transition planning resulted in decisions against the
school district. For example, in Caribou School De-
partment (2001), the student was not adequately in-
volved in the transition planning process. The hearing
officer concluded:
This student had been basically set adrift and
expected to determine his own needs, assess
his own college and career plans, choose his
own courses and, from age fourteen on, just
with the schools responsibility regarding tran-
sition planning begins, be his own advocate.
(35 IDELR 118)
The hearing officer also admonished the district for
pointing to the students graduation as a measure of
FAPE and educational benefit, warning that transition
planning . . . must be more than graduation (35 IDELR
118). The student was awarded college tuition, inciden-
Sheridan School District (1999), a 16-year-old student
was not invited to an IEP meeting at which the school
district determined that no transition services were
needed. No attempts were made to ensure that her pref-
erences or interests were considered. The school district
was ordered to develop a corrective action plan for train-
ing staff on transition planning, including how to ob-
tain student participation at IEP meetings and how to
determine when transition services are needed. The dis-
trict was ordered to submit a roster of staff attending
the training as well as the training materials. (See also
Eastern Howard School Corporation/Kokomo Area Spe-
cial Education Cooperative [1997], which ordered the
school district to reconvene an IEP meeting for transi-
tion planning and invite and include the student.)
Considering student interests and preferences does
not obligate school districts to acquiesce to student-
preferred plans if the district-proposed transition plan
is appropriate. The parent of a 14-year-old student with
autism argued that the school district had unilaterally
determined elective courses without regard for the stu-
dents preferences (Brodhead School District, 2003). The
administrative law judge determined that the selection
 CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 29/NO. 1/2006
of courses was based on student preference, the students
need for team-taught courses, and the students sched-
ule. Both parent and student had been included in IEP
meetings to determine specific courses. The parents
claim that the plan was deficient in not listing specific
courses for the following 4 years was rejected because
the students postschool vision was still evolving. The
student in Madison Metropolitan School District (2002)
expressed a strong interest in a performing arts pro-
gram, and his mother requested a vocational placement
there. The students IEP specified daily living skills, vo-
cational awareness, and adaptive behavior goals, as well
as vocational training (on-the-job training, paid em-
ployment, and supervised independent housing). The
administrative law judge concluded that a transitional
service plan is not the same thing as an adult vocational
placement (37 IDELR 26) and that the schools IEP
clearly identified a plan of services designed to promote
movement to postschool activities.
Although student invitation is a procedural require-
ment, failure to invite students was excused if student
interests and preferences were considered in transition
planning. Although the student in San Francisco Unified
School District and San Francisco Community Mental
Health (1998) was not invited to the IEP meeting to dis-
cuss transition planning, the goals and transition ac-
tivities were based on her needs. Transition activities,
however, were only included in her 11th-grade IEP and
involved only informal, student-initiated activities, such
as investigating college catalogs and writing for infor-
mation to select a college program. The hearing officer
concluded that no active transition planning was pro-
vided by the district, that the student required far more
extensive transition services than what the district was
offering, and that simply stating that a student with
significant learning disabilities will look into colleges
herself is not providing needed transition services
(29 IDELR 153).
Student input must be solicited in the development
of transition plans and services. IEP teams are required
to consider the students interests and preferences in
transition planning, but they do not necessarily need to
endorse all student-preferred activities. The transition
plan must be appropriate and based on students inter-
ests and needs.
Individualization of the Transition Plan
Transition plans must be based on transition assessment
results and individualized to meet each students unique
31
needs. Decisions concerning the individualization of
transition plans are presented in the Appendix. In Put-
man Board of Education (2003), the students transition
plans did not reflect his need for social and interper-
sonal support. The hearing officer concluded that the
needs of the student did not fall within traditional
academic realms and required self-management strat-
egies that (the student) will need in order to deal effec-
tively with postschool relationships as well as the types
of job and interpersonal stress with which he has already
demonstrated an inability to cope (103 LRP 57492).
The school district was ordered to hire an independent
consultant to oversee the development and implemen-
tation of appropriate transition plans and determine the
duration of the services provided to the student. In East
Penn School District v. Scott B. (1999), the student was
not evaluated for transition planning and was provided
only vocational education. The district court held that
the transition plan failed to address the students indi-
vidual and unique needs and placed the student into
existing generic programs with some minor adapta-
tions (29 IDELR 1058). By offering only generic vo-
cational education, the court found the transition
program to be woefully lacking the full panoply of
services that transition planning envisions . . . such as
how [the student] will get around in the community,
how he will meet his personal needs, and what recre-
ation opportunities he should strive for (29 IDELR
1058). The parent was awarded 608 hours of compen-
satory education. A hearing officer in Lancaster Inde-
pendent School District (1998) determined that the
career information provided to the student would not
assist the student in the transition from school to adult-
hood, given the nature of his disabilities. The transition
services were offered only in the last semester of high
school and were not individualized to meet his unique
needs: It was unreasonable to expect a student operat-
ing on a sixth grade level, in his strongest subjects, who
had never taken a [achievement test] to make prepara-
tions to take the SAT or ACT. It was unreasonable to ex-
pect a student who had held only a series of entry level
jobs to be able to act on information on how to start a
cosmetology business (29 IDELR 281). The school dis-
trict did not consider recommendations from an inde-
pendent consultant suggesting that an evaluation be
conducted to determine the students need for counsel-
ing as a transition service. The school district was or-
dered to provide the recommended counseling services
and to conduct the evaluation to determine which addi-
tional transition services were needed.
32 CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 29/NO. 1/2006
The decision in Appleton Area School District (1998)
highlighted the importance of matching transition plans
to individualized needs of the student. Although the stu-
dent had participated in graduation ceremonies with
her peers, the IEP team determined she needed addi-
tional functional skill development, including telling
time, using money, shopping for groceries, and caring
for herself. The district proposed a combination pro-
gram in which the student would learn the skills at the
high school and then be involved in a community-based
program where she could apply the skills. Due to her
inability to transfer skills, the parents requested that the
entire program be offered in community-based settings.
The student had also indicated that she did not want to
return to the high school setting because her peers had
graduated. The administrative law judge concluded
that the districts programs, though well-intentioned,
failed to address the students individual needs and
preferences: The IDEA outlines a wide variety of ways
in which to achieve [transition goals]. Most, if not all of
the enumerated services can (and in some cases clearly
must) be provided to a student in a nonschool setting.
Moreover, a students needs, individual preferences, and
interests are supposed to be considered in determining
the nature of the transitional services (27 IDELR 682).
The school district was ordered to begin providing in-
struction to the student in real life settings rather than
in artificial ones.
These decisions emphasize the importance of indi-
vidualizing transition plans on the basis of student need.
Plans incongruent with student needs resulted in deci-
sions against school districts.
District Obligations
School districts obligations concerning transition from
school to postschool settings has been the focus of sev-
eral administrative actions (see Appendix). In North
Hunterdon/Voorhees Regional High Board of Education
(2004), parents requested reimbursement for the uni-
lateral placement of their 22-year-old son in a multiyear
program focused on achieving successful transition
from school to community. The administrative law
judge determined that IDEA required the school dis-
trict to promote or put students on a path to indepen-
dent living (41 IDELR 171) but did not require the
school district to ensure that the goal of employment or
independent living was achieved. Because the school
district had offered the student genuine chances to ex-
plore options beyond high school, its duty to provide a
program calculated to benefit the student was met. Sim-
ilarly, in Birmingham Public Schools (2003), parents were
dissatisfied with the various job placements facilitated
by the school district and requested additional services.
Although some placements were not successful, the
transition planning had included attendance at a com-
munity college, placement at a technical center, assess-
ment by a vocational services agency, and attempts to
find suitable employment placements. The hearing offi-
cer determined that the school district had met its re-
quirements under IDEA regarding the provision of
transition services. The parents of a high school student
in Washoe County School District (2002) proposed a
placement for their high school daughter at a magnet
school designed to prepare students for college. The
state hearing officer decided that the student would ben-
efit from the traditional high schools program, which
was designed to enable students to transition to life af-
ter high school by successfully meeting the social and
vocational goals as well as graduation requirements. The
school districts ultimate responsibility was to assure the
provision of FAPE. In Wisconsin Dells School District
(2001), the parent argued that the school district failed
to provide adequate transition services because the stu-
dent was not exposed to a variety of job experiences.
The school district introduced the student to a variety
of school and community experiences and successfully
transitioned the student from school to employment at
a sheltered workshop. The administrative law judge
concluded that the District was not required to pro-
vide every possible job experience but was required to
provide job experiences that were based on his individ-
ual needs, taking into account his preferences and inter-
ests, and that is what they did (35 IDELR 145). Yet in
Susquehanna Township School District v. Jelani J. (2003),
the court rejected the school districts argument that its
transition obligations had been met by providing the
student with the opportunity and skills to apply to
postsecondary programs. Pursuant to the IEP, the dis-
trict had agreed to provide a 1-year postsecondary col-
lege preparatory program, but the district had failed to
provide that transition service. The district argued that
the obligation was to promote opportunity, not to ob-
tain or pay for the postschool placement. The court held
that such efforts were de minimis (i.e., insignificant) and
did not meet the IDEA requirements.
To provide FAPE, school districts are required to de-
velop transition plans to promote the movement from
school to postschool settings. These decisions show that
school districts are not responsible for job placement or
 CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 29/NO. 1/2006
postschool success, but they must provide appropriate
and genuine supports and services.
Appropriateness of the Transition Plan
Most of the decisions included in the analysis concerned
the appropriateness of transition plans(see Appendix).
The parent of an 18-year-old student with Down syn-
drome alleged that an inappropriate reading program
was a barrier to the students transition to postschool
employment and living (San Diego Unified School Dis-
trict, 2002). The school district program focused on
learning sight words that the student would encoun-
ter in the community and reading first-grade books.
The hearing officer ruled that no one in the district
taught the student the reading skills needed for sup-
ported employment and independent living, including
job applications, job descriptions, medical prescrip-
tions, telephone directories, bus schedules, maps, movie
and television schedules, store prices, and food labels
(38 IDELR 172). The parent was awarded a 1-year inde-
pendent study program beyond graduation to instruct
the student in reading material related to job descrip-
tions, job applications, other job-related information,
and independent living. After graduating from high
school, the student in Thornton Fractional Township
High School District #128 (2002) had two job experi-
ences before being laid off; he then decided to apply to a
technical school. He failed the entrance exam. The tech-
nical school was unaware of his learning disability, and
no accommodations were provided for the exam. The
hearing officer decided that the school district failed to
evaluate the student to determine transition supports
or services necessary to enroll him in a technical school,
which had consistently been identified as the students
postschool vision. The student was awarded a 36-week
compensatory tutorial program (see also Livermore Val-
ley Joint Unified School District [2000], in which failure
to plan and fund expressive communication aids pro-
hibited the student from utilizing the posthigh school
programs agreed to by the IEP team; Portland School
District [1999], in which failure to provide instruction
related to use of city bus system denied FAPE).
Conversely, if the transition plans offered to stu-
dents provided FAPE, requests for extended programs
or compensatory education were denied. Although the
bulk of a students transition program was not in dis-
pute in Los Angeles Unified School District (2001), the
parent sought an additional year in the community-
based instruction program due to the inappropriateness
33
of the travel mobility training. The decision favored the
school district, finding the student had successfully met
IEP goals of travel safety and traveling with adult assis-
tance. The student in Bret Harte Union High School
(1999) alleged the transition plan to move him from
school to college was inadequate, but the hearing officer
found that the school district provided junior college
connections, obtained the services of an independent
vocational counselor, and contacted the department of
rehabilitation as well as a learning disabilities specialist
at the college. The plan was deemed to have provided
FAPE (see also Elmhurst School District 205 [2000], in
which a students IEP included appropriate transition
goals).
In several cases, procedural errors were excused if
the transition services provided to students were suf-
ficient. For example, in Half-Hollow Hills Central School
District (2001), a student with autism was enrolled in
keyboarding, crafts, business math, introduction to oc-
cupations, and principles of work courses. The school
district also explored a number of possible vocational
settings, arranged for a half-day vocational program,
and consulted an expert in autism to assist in the prepa-
ration of the students transition plan. The state review
officer determined that although the IEP lacked a for-
mal statement of transition service needs, the student
received a useful program of important skills, which
would be needed for success in school and postschool
employment, as well as independent living as an adult
(35 IDELR 169). In Arlington Central School District
(1998), a state review officer concluded that although
the students IEP did not include a statement of transi-
tion services, the school district provided appropriate
transition services designed to address his postschool
needs. The school district had invited the student and
parent to the IEP meeting to plan transition services
and included the students interests and preferences in
the selection of transition services. The services pro-
vided by the district consisted of interest-based course-
work, vocational training, and community living and
work experiences. Failure to include a statement of these
services in the IEP was a technical defect that did not
deprive the student of FAPE or prevent parent or stu-
dent participation in the planning process (see also
Board of Education of the City School District of the City
of New York [1999], in which a lack of a transition plan
was excused because the student received an appropri-
ate transition to a day habilitation program; Houston
Independent School District [1999], in which the dis-
tricts failure to include transition plans in IEP for a
34 CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 29/NO. 1/2006
16-year-old student did not deny FAPE because he was
receiving benefits and services to prepare him for col-
lege and the district had attempted to arrange a meeting
to plan services but the parent resisted; School Adminis-
trative District #1 [1997], in which the student received
a variety of appropriate transition services through a
guidance counselor, although a formalized transition
plan had not been developed in timely manner; Musco-
gee County School System [1997], which found that fail-
ure to update the transition plan due to disagreement
concerning vocational placement did not deny FAPE).
The failure to provide transition services has con-
sistently been viewed as a violation of the substantive
requirement of IDEA. Such failure denies students a
FAPE and results in tuition reimbursement and com-
pensatory education (see Board of Education of the Ar-
lington Central School District [2001]; T. F. v. North Penn
School District [1999]; St. Paul ISD #615 [1998]; Bonita
Unified School District [1998]).
DISCUSSION
Agency Contacts
The analysis revealed the need for school districts to ini-
tiate contacts with postschool support agencies and to
ensure that those agencies will be involved in students
transition planning by the time the students are 16 years
old. Failure to efficiently coordinate postschool services
creates barriers to students achieving successful post-
school results (Johnson et al., 2002). IEP teams must co-
ordinate postsecondary education supports with other
community services, such as health, human services,
and transportation (Stodden & Dowrick, 2000). Suc-
cessful interagency collaboration results in positive stu-
dent outcomes, including high postschool referral rates
to adult services agencies and high employment rates
(Hasazi, Furney, & DeStefano, 1999).
The shared responsibility for agency planning was
clearly specified when transition services were first de-
fined in the 1990 amendments to IDEA: The prepara-
tion of students with disabilities for movement from
school to postschool environments [should] not be
the sole responsibility of public education but rather a
shared responsibility (House of Representatives Re-
port 101-544, 1990). Both IDEA and the Vocational Re-
habilitation Act of 1973 as amended in the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 require a formal interagency
agreement to specify the responsibilities of providing
transition services to individuals with disabilities. IDEA
requires the agreement to include the identification of fi-
nancial responsibility, reimbursement conditions, coordi-
nation or service procedures, and methods for resolving
interagency disputes [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(12)(A)]. The
Rehabilitation Act requires delineation of roles and re-
sponsibilities for transition services, including financial
obligations, consultation with education agencies to
plan postschool activities, transition planning for IEPs,
and procedures for outreach and identification of stu-
dents with disabilities who need transition services
(29 U.S.C. 101(a)(11)(D)). The state education agency
is responsible for providing and paying for transition
services for students eligible under IDEA, and the state
vocational rehabilitation agency is responsible for pro-
viding and paying for services agreed to in an eligible
individuals Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE;
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
2000).
A 1996 study by the U.S. Department of Education
found that approximately 80% of students with disabil-
ities require adult services to achieve employment and
independent living goals. Yet, interagency collaboration
remains fragmented nationwide (U.S. Department of
Education, 1998). In a study investigating the proce-
dural compliance of 282 transition plans throughout
one state, Tillman and Ford (2001) found that only 30%
of the plans demonstrated linkages to community agen-
cies, despite the finding that 73% of the transition plans
indicated students needed employment assistance and
demonstrated other postschool-living needs. According
to Agran, Cain, and Cavin (2002), although rehabilita-
tion counselors play a pivotal role in adult services for
many students, special education teachers reported that
those counselors were never or rarely invited to IEP
transition meetings. The counselors frequently reported
that neither parents nor school districts contacted them
as resources. Williams and OLeary (2001) reported that
special education teachers infrequently interacted with
service providers and that the teachers were unfamiliar
with the services offered by agencies and their referral
procedures. Furthermore, delineation of the responsi-
bilities for the adult services agencies is often absent on
transition plans (Everson, Zhana, & Gillory, 2001).
The designation of a transition specialist to coordi-
nate interagency collaboration has been advocated as
a crucial component of quality service coordination
(deFur & Taymans, 1995; Kohler, 1993). Implementa-
tion and coordination of the IDEA mandates may best
be achieved through an interdisciplinary leadership par-
adigm (DeStefano, Heck, Hasazi, & Furney, 1999) that
 CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 29/NO. 1/2006
involves multiple agency participants dedicated to pro-
viding quality services to individuals with disabilities.
Student Involvement
In planning transition services, the students input must
be solicited. IDEA specifically requires that all special
education students be invited to attend IEP meetings to
plan transition services (34 C.F.R. 300.344(b)(1)). Yet
a significant number of students are not invited to tran-
sition meetings (Williams & OLeary, 2001), and those
who do attend are often passive participants (Lovitt,
Cushing, & Stump, 1994; Martin, Huber-Marshall, &
Sale, 2004; Powers, Turner, Matuszewski, Wilson, &
Loesch, 1999). Special education teachers provide lim-
ited opportunities for students to discuss and plan
postschool activities (Zhang, Katsiyannis, & Zhang,
2002), minimizing the value of their contributions at
transition planning meetings.
When invited and prepared, students value the op-
portunity to be actively involved in postschool planning
(Mason, McGahee-Kovac, Johnson, & Stillerman, 2002).
Student participation in transition planning is highly
associated with improved graduation and employment
outcomes (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000) and con-
sidered to be a crucial support strategy for effective tran-
sition services (Hughes et al., 1997). Administrators
must learn the advantages of active student participa-
tion and facilitate students assuming that role (Martin,
Greene, & Borland, 2004). Schools must provide oppor-
tunities for students to learn how to participate actively
in training meetings and to engage in postschool plan-
ning (Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1998).
Such involvement is consistent with the concept of self-
determination (Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 1998) and
student-centered planning (Getzel & deFur, 1997).
Individualization of the Transition Plan
Transition plans must be individualized to meet each
students unique postsecondary needs. Services must be
individualized to integrate the various types of support
that a student will require after high school (National
Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Sup-
ports, 2000). Students with disabilities have reported
that they highly value the individualization of services
(Benz et al., 2000). Appropriate, individualized transi-
tion plans may be developed through a five-step plan
proposed by Storms, OLeary, and Williams (2000). The
IEP team first examines the students and familys post-
35
school goals and vision and then discusses and docu-
ments the students present level of performance and
transition service needs. The team formulates a state-
ment of needed transition services and develops annual
goals and objectives for those needs and services. Plan-
ning successful transition programs requires schools to
follow the mandates of IDEA, individualize transition
services, and monitor implementation of transition plans
to evaluate effectiveness (Collet-Lingenberg, 1998).
District Obligation
The school districts obligation regarding transition ser-
vices was clarified in the 1990 amendments to IDEA:
The schools are not expected to become job
placement centers. However, there are many
employment and employment related activi-
ties which are appropriately provided by and
funded through the local education agency. In
addition, the schools should facilitate linkage
with other public agencies in the transition to
independent living, job training, preparation,
vocational rehabilitation, and postsecondary
education. That is why the committee has
taken great care in its choice of the words
which promotes movement in the definition
of transition services. (House of Representa-
tives Report 101-544, 1990)
Moreover, IDEA did not intend for schools to as-
sume the financial responsibilities of transition services
that should be the responsibility of postschool agencies.
In identifying adult services agencies, the IEP should
include
a commitment by any participating agency
(i.e., the state or local rehabilitation agency)
to meet its financial responsibility in the pro-
vision of transition services. The local educa-
tion agency should not bear the costs of
transition services that, according to the IEP,
would have been borne by another participat-
ing agency. (House of Representatives Report
101-544, 1990)
IDEA clearly states that the local education agency
is responsible for planning, providing, and evaluating
transition services until the student graduates. The
school district must invite to IEP meetings a representa-
36 CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 29/NO. 1/2006
tive of any other agency likely to be providing or paying
for transition services (34 C.F.R. 300.347(b)(2)). Such
agencies may include vocational rehabilitation, employ-
ment and training, mental health, developmental dis-
abilities, social security, housing, recreation, or others
relevant to an individual students needs (National Cen-
ter on Secondary Education and Transition, 2002). If a
participating agency is unable to provide agreed-upon
services, the local education agency must convene a
meeting to explore alternatives (20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(6);
34 C.F.R. 300.348(a)). Once the student graduates,
however, the school districts responsibility ceases. The
services to be provided to the student by adult-service
agencies must be listed on the final IEP (McAfee &
Greenawalt, 2001).
Appropriateness of Transition Plans
As guided by Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson
Central School District v. Rowley (1982), the appropri-
ateness of an IEP is determined by not only procedural
compliance but also substantive compliance. An IEP
must be reasonably calculated to provide the student
with meaningful educational benefit. Transition plans
must be developed to ensure that the substance will re-
sult in meaningful postschool benefits for the student.
The IEP team must consider a variety of transition ac-
tivities to promote the successful movement from
school to postschool environments.
The list of possible transition services suggested
in IDEA mirrors the pedagogical literature concerning
best practices in transition (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2004).
Curricula that integrate academic and occupational
learning will meet both the general curriculum and
transition mandates of IDEA (Eisenman, 2000). Tran-
sition planning must consider the holistic needs of a
student, not merely postschool employment (De-
Stefano, Heck, Hasazi, & Furney, 1999). Students with
disabilities must progress toward academic proficiency
as well as postschool goals. Appropriate services may
include academic classes, continuing or adult educa-
tion, daily living, socialization, independent living,
and financial competencies. Furthermore, community-
based programs are considered to be an essential and
effective adjunct to school-based programs (Johnson et
al., 2002; Kamens, Dolyniuk, & Dinardo, 2003).
IDEAs transition requirements are results-oriented.
If a student is able to benefit from the transition proc-
ess, despite procedural or technical errors, the intent
of the IDEA mandate has been fulfilled. Those defi-
ciencies, however, may not compromise the students
or parents involvement in the transition planning
process or deny the student a FAPE (Roland M. v. Con-
cord School Committee, 1990).
PERSPECTIVE
Legal issues concerning transition planning for students
with disabilities involve procedural and substantive
components. The law requires IEP teams to involve
adult-services agencies in transition planning and to so-
licit student input, practices that are supported in the
empirical literature. Moreover, transition plans must be
individualized on the basis of student needs and must
provide services that will be meaningful and beneficial.
Several implications for improving practice may be
identified. First, all members of a students IEP team
must be familiar with the adult-service options avail-
able, either through the community or state agencies.
Team members should visit service agencies, talk with
representatives, and obtain relevant eligibility infor-
mation prior to establishing the required interagency
coordination for a given student. Second, IEP teams
should explore unique and individualized methods to
ensure meaningful student involvement in transition
planning. Various types of assistive technology may
enhance a students ability to communicate interests
and career preferences. The inclusion of nonschool per-
sonnel, such as employers or supervisors, on IEP teams
may further the teams awareness of the students pref-
erences. Third, an individualized and age-appropriate
assessment of training, education, employment, or in-
dependent living skills will ensure that students transi-
tion plans are, indeed, individualized. Such assessments
can guide the development of transition plans that are
unique and student-specific. IEP teams should docu-
ment the assessment results used in formulating the tran-
sition plan for individual students. Finally, IEP teams must
collect progress-monitoring data throughout the transi-
tion period to gauge whether transition services are ap-
propriate or changes are needed. Intermittent, frequent
data on progress toward transition outcomes will pro-
vide essential information to IEP teams.
In addition to the change in definition from
outcome-oriented to results-oriented process that
is focused on improving the academic and functional
achievement of the child (20 U.S.C. 1402(34)), the
reauthorized IDEA 2004 included significant changes
to the transition requirements. IDEA 2004 no longer
requires that IEP teams begin to discuss transition
 CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 29/NO. 1/2006
needs and specifically courses of study when the stu-
dent is 14 years old. Instead, the statute now requires
that the IEP include a transition statement not later
than the first IEP to be in effect when the child is 16,
with annual reviews and updates (20 U.S.C. 1414(d)
(1)(A)(i)(VIII)). This change seems surprising for two
reasons. First, postschool plans are typically coordinated
for all students in a comprehensive 4-year plan. Courses
necessary to graduate or related to the students future
goals are sequentially planned. Given the dismal post-
secondary outcomes for many students with disabili-
ties, a shorter time for transition planning may fail to
improve the movement toward postschool activities. It
is hoped that IEP teams will continue to begin transi-
tion planning no later than age 14 to enhance the suc-
cessful movement to postschool environments. Second,
the 2-year planning period may be inadequate to ensure
students receive sufficient and beneficial activities to
promote the movement to postschool environments. As
revealed in the analysis of administrative and court de-
cisions, the failure to provide adequate transition ser-
vices has consistently been viewed as a violation of the
substantive requirement of IDEA. Such failure denied
students a FAPE and resulted in tuition reimbursement
and compensatory education. Insufficient time to plan
adequate transition services may result in litigation al-
leging a denial of FAPE.
IDEA 2004 also requires the IEP team to include
appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based
upon age appropriate transition assessments related to
training, education, employment and where appropri-
ate, independent living skills (20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(A)
(i)(VIII)(aa)) and to specify the transition services (in-
cluding courses of study) needed to assist the child in
reaching those goals (20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)
(bb)). The requirement for measurable postschool ob-
jectives was anticipated, as advised by the Presidents
Commission on Excellence in Special Education (U.S.
Department of Education, 2002):
The Commission is appropriately concerned
that too many children fail to move from
school to adult living more successfully. . . .
The Commission finds that transition services
are not being implemented to the fullest ex-
tent possible and that meaningful results do
not happen. . . . The Commission finds that
IDEA must be changed to clearly link students
long-range transition goals to the develop-
ment of the annual IEP goals, objectives and
37
activities. . . . These changes should redefine
transition services as a results-oriented proc-
ess focusing on postschool and in-school re-
sults including academic and nonacademic
alternatives. (pp. 4649)
Furthermore, the need to fortify links between goals
and postschool outcomes has been frequently recom-
mended in the empirical literature (Collett-Lingenberg,
1998; Krom & Prater, 1993).
IDEA 2004 also requires local education agencies
to provide a summary of a students academic achieve-
ment and functional performance when IDEA services
are to be terminated due to graduation from secondary
school with a regular diploma or due to age eligibility
(20 U.S.C. 1414(c)(5)(B)(ii)). The summaries must
include recommendations on how to assist students in
meeting postsecondary goals. This summary may serve
several purposes, including the continued coordination
of postschool activities. For example, adult-service
agencies will have a clear picture of the individuals
strengths and needs, thus promoting the development
of effective long-range plans. The recommendations
from school personnel familiar with the students inter-
ests and preferences may ensure that those plans are
congruent with the students and familys vision.
These changes in IDEA 2004 appear to encourage
attention beyond procedural compliance with the IDEA
transition mandates to meeting the substantive require-
ments. Expanding the focus beyond procedural compli-
ance to include concentrated efforts to improve the
quality of students programs will enhance the transi-
tion planning process (McMahan & Baer, 2001). Many
IEP teams focus on filling in the transition page of the
IEP accurately without regard to the value of this re-
quirement (deFur, 2003, p. 120). Adherence to the sub-
stantive requirements of IDEA 2004 will ensure that
students with disabilities have meaningful supports in
their movement to postschool settings.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Susan Etscheidt, PhD, is an associate professor of spe-
cial education at the University of Northern Iowa. Her
current research interests include special education law
and education policy issues.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Susan Etscheidt, 655 Schindler Education Center, Univer-
sity of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa 50614; e-mail:
etscheidt@uni.edu
38 CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 29/NO. 1/2006
REFERENCES
Agran, M., Cain, H. M., & Cavin, M. D. (2002). Enhancing the in-
volvement of rehabilitation counselors in the transition process.
Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 123137.
Arlington Central School District, 28 IDELR 1130 (SEA NY 1998).
Appleton Area School District, 27 IDELR 682 (SEA WI 1998). Af-
firmed Appleton Area School District v. Benson, 32 IDELR 91
(ED. WI 2000).
Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving gradu-
ation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities:
Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Chil-
dren, 66, 509529.
Birmingham Public Schools, 38 IDELR 257 (SEA MI 2003).
Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool out-
comes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62,
399413. Retrieved February 23, 2005, from http://infotrac
.galegroup.com
Board of Education of the Arlington Central School District, 36
IDELR 193 (SEA NY 2001).
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, 32 IDELR 24 (SEA NY 1999).
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District
v. Rowley, 553 LRP 656 (102 S. Ct. 3034, 1982).
Bonita Unified School District, 27 IDELR 248 (SEA CA 1998).
Bret Harte Union High School District, 30 IDELR (SEA CA 1999).
Brodhead School District, 40 IDELR 58 (SEA WI 2003).
Caribou School Department, 35 IDELR 115 (SEA ME 2001).
Collet-Lingenberg, L. L. (1998). The reality of best practices in tran-
sition: A case study. Exceptional Children, 65, 6778.
deFur, S. H. (2003). IEP Transition planning: From compliance to
quality. Exceptionality, 11(2), 115128. Retrieved February 25,
2005, from http://www.leaonline.com/
deFur, S. H., & Taymans, J. M. (1995). Competencies needed for tran-
sition specialists in vocational rehabilitation, vocational educa-
tion, and special education. Exceptional Children, 62, 3851.
DeStefano, L., Heck, D., Hasazi, S., & Furney, K. (1999). Enhancing
the implementation of the transition requirements of IDEA: A
report on the Policy Forum on Transition. Career Development
for Exceptional Individuals, 22, 85100.
East Penn School District v. Scott B., 29 IDELR 1058 (ED PA 1999).
Eastern Howard School Corporation/ Kokomo Area Special Educa-
tion Cooperative, 26 IDELR 811 (SEA IN 1997).
Eisenman, L. T. (2000). Characteristics and effects of integrated aca-
demic and occupational curricula for students with disabilities:
A literature review. Career Development for Exceptional Individ-
uals, 23, 105119.
Elmhurst School District 205, 34 IDELR 112 (SEA IL 2000).
Everson, J. M., Zhana, D., & Gillory, J. D. (2001). A statewide investi-
gation of individual transition plans in Louisiana. Career Devel-
opment for Exceptional Individuals, 24, 3749.
Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (1998).
Self-determination for persons with disabilities: A position
statement of the Division of Career Development and Transition.
Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21, 113128.
Fulton County School System, 29 IDELR 1031 (SEA GA 1999).
Getzel, E. E., & deFur, S. (1997). Transition planning for students
with significant disabilities: Implications for student-centered
planning. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,
21, 3948.
Half-Hollow Hills Central School District, 35 IDELR 169 (SEA
NY 2001).
Hasazi, S. B., Furney, K. S., & DeStefano, L. (1999). Implementing
the IDEA transition mandates. Exceptional Children, 65, 555566.
House of Representatives Report 101-544, 1990 USCCAN 1723, 1733.
Houston Independent School District, 32 IDELR 79 (SEA TX 1999).
Hughes, C., Hwang, B., Kim, J., Killian, D. J., Harmer, M. L., & Al-
cantara, P. R. (1997). A preliminary validation of strategies that
support the transition from school to adult life. Career Develop-
ment for Exceptional Individuals, 20, 114.
Independent School District No. 0011, Anoka-Hennepin, 102 LRP
7054 (SEA MN 2000).
Johnson, D. R., Stodden, R. A., Emanuel, E. J., Luecking, R., & Mack,
M. (2002). Current challenges facing secondary education and
transition services: What research tells us. Exceptional Children,
68, 519531.
Kamens, M. W., Dolyniuk, C. A., & Dinardo, P. (2003). Preparing
teachers for the transition of students with disabilities through
community-based instruction. Career Development for Excep-
tional Individuals, 26, 99118.
Kohler, P. D. (1993). Best practices in transition: Substantiated or
implied? Career Development of Exceptional Individuals, 16,
107121.
Krom, D. M., & Prater, M. A. (1993). IEP goals for intermediate-aged
students with mild mental retardation. Career Development for
Exceptional Individuals, 16, 8795.
Lancaster Independent School District, 29 IDELR 281 (SEA TX 1998).
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative
design in educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, 33 IDELR 288 (SEA
CA 2000).
Los Angeles Unified School District, 37 IDELR 55 (SEA CA 2001).
Lovitt, T. C., Cushing, S. S., & Stump, C. S. (1994). High school stu-
dents rate their IEP: Low opinion and lack of ownership. Inter-
vention in School and Clinic, 30(1), 3438.
Madison Metropolitan School District, 37 IDELR 26 (SEA WI 2002).
Martin, J. E., Greene, B. A., & Borland, B. J. (2004). Secondary school
students involvement in their IEP meetings: Administrators
perceptions. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 27,
177188.
Martin, J. E., Huber-Marshall, L., & Sale, P. (2004). A three-year study
of middle, junior high, and high school IEP meetings. Excep-
tional Children, 70, 285297.
Mason, C. Y., McGahee-Kovac, M., Johnson, L., & Stillerman, S.
(2002). Implementing student-led IEPs: Student participation
and student and teacher reactions. Career Development for Ex-
ceptional Individuals, 25, 171192.
McAfee, J. K., & Greenawalt, C. (2001). IDEA, the courts, and the law
of transition. Preventing School Failure, 45(3), 102107.
McMahan, R., & Baer, R. (2001). IDEA transition policy compliance
and best practice: Perceptions of transition stakeholders. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24, 169184.
Muscogee County School System, 26 IDELR 41 (SEA GA 1997).
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Sup-
ports (NCSPES). (2000). Postsecondary education and employ-
ment for students with disabilities: Focus group discussions on
supports and barriers to lifelong learning [Technical report]. Hon-
 CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 29/NO. 1/2006
olulu: University of Hawaii. Available from http://www.ncset
.hawaii.edu
National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. (2002).
IDEA 1997: Implications for secondary education and transition
services. Minneapolis, MN: NCSET. Retrieved May 11, 2005,
from http://www.ncset.org/
North Hunterdon/Voorhees Regional High Board of Education, 41
IDELA 171 (SEA NJ 2004).
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2000). Let-
ter to McMurdo, 35 IDELR 161.
Patton, M. W. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods
(3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2004). Transition services in special
education: A practical approach. Boston: Pearson.
Portland School District, 30 IDELR 836 (SEA OR 1999).
Powers, L. E., Turner, A., Matuszewski, J., Wilson, R., & Loesch, C.
(1999). A qualitative analysis of student involvement in transi-
tion planning. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Educa-
tion, 21(3), 1826.
Putman Board of Education, 103 LRP 57492 (SEA CT 2003).
Roland M. v. Concord School Committee, 16 IDELR 1129 (1st Cir.
1990).
San Diego Unified School District, 36 IDELR 172 (SEA CA 2002).
San Francisco Unified School District and San Francisco Commu-
nity Mental Health, 29 IDELR 153 (SEA CA 1998).
School Administrative District #1, 25 IDELR 1256 (SEA ME 1997).
Sheridan School District, 32 IDELR 75 (SEA OR 1999).
Stodden, R. A., & Dowrick, P. (2000). The present and future of post-
secondary education for adults with disabilities. IMPACT,
13(1), 45.
Storms, J., OLeary, E., & Williams, J. (2000). The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act of 1997 transition requirements: A guide
for states, districts, schools, universities and families. Minneapolis,
MN: National Transition Network. Retrieved February 24, 2005,
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
St. Paul ISD #615, 28 IDELR 210 (SEA MN 1998).
Susquehanna Township School District v. Jelani J., 39 IDELR 5 (PA
Comm. Ct., 2003).
T. F. v. North Penn School District, 31 IDELR 2 (ED PA 1999).
39
Thornton Fractional Township High School District #128, 36 IDELR
283 (SEA IL 2002).
Tillman, J. D., & Ford, L. (2001). Analysis of transition services of In-
dividualized Education Programs for high school students with
special needs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Na-
tional Association of School Psychologists, Washington, DC.
Retrieved February 25, 2005, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
Travis Pace v. the Bogalusa City School Board, 34 IDELR 116 (ED
LA 2001).
U.S. Department of Education. (1996). To assure the free appropriate
public education of all children with disabilities: Eighteenth an-
nual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Re-
trieved February 24, 2005, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). To assure the free appropriate
public education of all children with disabilities: Twentieth an-
nual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Re-
trieved February 24, 2005, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
U.S. Department of Education, Presidents Commission on Excel-
lence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing spe-
cial education for children and their families. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved February 24, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/
inits/commissionsboards/
Washington Township Board of Education, 102 LRP 11891 (SEA NY
1999).
Washoe County School District, 37 IDELR 28 (SEA NV 2002).
Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (1998). Teaching self-
determination to students with disabilities: Basic skills for success-
ful transition. Baltimore: Brookes.
Williams, J. M., & OLeary, E. (2001). What weve learned and where
we go from here. Career Development for Exceptional Individu-
als, 24, 5171.
Wisconsin Dells School District, 35 IDELR 145 (SEA WI 2001).
Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., & Zhang, J. (2002). Teacher and parent
practice on fostering self-determination of high school students
with mild disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Indi-
viduals, 25, 157169.
Appendix:
Judicial and Administrative Decisions Related to Transition Planning

Agency Contacts

Case Student data Issue Decision

Fulton County 21-year-old female Student claimed that FAPE was denied due to inadequacy For school district: IEP included referral plan to
School System, 29 with TBI and LD of IEP, including transition plans, and that outside agencies outside agencies. The district had coordinated post-
IDELR 1031 (SEA were not involved in transition planning. School district school plans with adult-service agencies, includ-
GA 1999) claimed to have coordinated postschool plans with agencies. ing one with whom the parent refused services.
Independent School 17-year-old male Parent claimed that transition services were not coordinated to For parent: IEP did not reflect representation of
District No. 0011, with MD and provide FAPE and no agencies were invited to attend IEP meeting. other agencies likely to be responsible for providing
40

Anoka-Hennepin, Down syndrome School district argued that the parent had agency contacts, but and paying for transition services. Ignorance is not
102 LRP 7054 failed to inform school district. excuse for failing to invite agencies.
(SEA MN 2000)
Travis Pace v. the 21-year-old male Student claimed that district denied FAPE by not inviting other For school district: IDEAs procedural requirements
Bogalusa City with PD and LD agencies to his transition planning meeting and by not providing were met because agencies were contacted; the stu-
School Board, 34 transition services. School district argued that appropriate agen- dent and his parents participated in planning proc-
IDELR 116 (ED cies were contacted and that transition plans were beneficial to ess, which resulted in benefit to the student.
LA 2001) the student.
Washington Town- 21-year-old female Student claimed that only lip service was given to transition For parents: Although the administrative law judge
ship Board of Edu- with multiple services in IEP and that no invitation to attend the IEP meeting returned the matter to the Department of Educa-
cation, 102 LRP disabilities was extended to an agency likely to provide and pay for transition tion for mediation, the judge suggested that an adult
11891 (SEA NY services, nor were the parents put in contact with that agency. agency may be liable for slow response to the student.
1999) The student was no longer eligible for school district services.
(appendix continues)
(appendix continued)

Student Involvement

Case Student data Issue Decision

Brodhead School 14-year-old male Parent argued that the school district unilaterally determined tran- For school district: The district had followed proc-
District, 40 IDELR with autism and SI sition needs and ignored the students preferences when selecting edural and substantive requirements regarding
58 (SEA WI 2003) coursework. The parent argued that the transition plan should in- transition services. The students preferences were
clude specific coursework for the next 4 years. The school district included in the IEP, and the parent and student par-
countered that course selection had been based on the students ticipated in IEP decisions. A 4-year plan of courses
preferences, his needs for team-taught courses, and schedule was not practical because the students postschool
availability. vision was still evolving.
Caribou School Postgraduate 19- The parents alleged that the school district did not involve them For parent: The school district did not consider the
Department, 35 year-old male with or the student in transition planning. The school district argued need for transition planning prior to the student
IDELR 115 (SEA ED that the program was adequate because the student graduated turning 16 years of age and did not involve the par-
ME 2001) from high school. ent or the student in transition planning. The stu-
dent received no advice or assistance in transition.
41

Eastern Howard 14-year-old male The parent alleged numerous violations, including failure to in- For parent: The school district was ordered to hold
School with ADD volve the student in transition planning. The school district agreed another meeting for transition planning and include
Corporation/ to reconvene the transition meeting and invite and include the the student.
Kokomo Area student.
Special Education
Cooperative, 26
IDELR 811 (SEA
IN 1997)
Madison Metro- Postgraduate male The student expressed strong interest in a performing arts pro- For school district: The IEP had clear, appropriate,
politan School Dis- with Williams gram and the parent requested it as vocational placement. The and beneficial transition plans. The student should
trict, 37 IDELR 26 Syndrome school district argued that participation in program was not nec- pursue music interests after completion of education
(SEA WI 2002) essary to provide FAPE. The school district transition program with district. Moreover, the school district was ad-
included daily living skills, vocational awareness, and adaptive dressing the students interests through the students
behavior goals, as well as vocational training (on-the-job training, participation in band and other fine arts services.
paid employment, and supervised independent housing).

(appendix continues)
(appendix continued)

Student Involvement

Case Student data Issue Decision

San Francisco Uni- 18-year-old female The parent argued that the school district failed to design appro- For parent: The students interests were considered
fied School District with LD and SED priate transition plan for 2 years and that the plan for the students in transition planning, but transition services were
and San Francisco junior year was inadequate. The student was not invited to attend inadequate. The student required more extensive
Community Men- meeting. The school district claimed to meet transition obliga- transition services than the informal, student-
tal Health, 29 tions with career-based activities (e.g., mock interview, student initiated activities that the school district offered.
IDELR 153 (SEA choosing three specific career interests, exploring college
CA 1998) programs.)
Sheridan School 17-year-old female Parent alleged that the school district failed to document why the For parent: The school district failed to ensure that
District, 32 IDELR with PD (cerebral student did not require transition services and failed to invite the the students interests and preferences were consid-
75 (SEA OR 1999) palsy) student to the IEP meeting. The school district claimed that the ered during transition planning. The school district
student did not require transition services and that it did provide was ordered to train staff on transition planning.
transition activities, including job shadowing, career exploration,
and resume writing.
42

Individualization of the Transition Plan

Case Student data Issue Decision

Appleton Area 19-year-old female Parent objected to proposed postgraduation IEP calling for a For parent: Transition plans must be individualized
School District, 27 with MD and cere- combined program through high school and community-based to meet each students needs, and the students inter-
IDELR 682 (SEA bral palsy agencies. Due to students inability to transfer skills, the parent ests and preferences must be considered. The stu-
WI 1998). Af- requested that the entire program be community-based. The stu- dents inability to transfer skills necessitates that the
firmed Appleton dent also had expressed that she did not want to return to the entire program be community-based.
Area School Dis- high school. The school district argued that the combined pro-
trict v. Benson, 32 gram is appropriate, that the student has the ability to transfer
IDELR 91 (ED skills, and that the program would be less restrictive.
WI 2000)
East Penn School 20-year-old male Parent alleged that the transition plan was not based on evalua- For parent: Transition plan was not individualized
District v. Scott B., with multiple tion, contained inadequate services, and included no goals. The to address the students unique needs. The school
29 IDELR 1058 disabilities school district argued that the plan was adequate, had specific district provided only vocational training, which
(ED PA 1999) goals, and addressed vocational education. was not based on vocational evaluation.

(appendix continues)
(appendix continued)

Student Involvement

Case Student data Issue Decision

Lancaster Indepen- 18-year-old male Parent charged that the student lacked basic skills needed to
dent School Dis- with LD and achieve postschool goals and made no progress toward transition
trict, 29 IDELR 281 ADHD plan goals. Transition services were offered only during the final
(SEA TX 1998) semester of high school. The school district contended that the
student had received FAPE as evidenced by graduation from high
school. The school district was not required to maximize the stu-
dents potential, only to provide education beneficial to the
student.
Putman Board of 17-year-old male Parent alleged that the school district provided inadequate tran-
Education, 103 with ED sition services and should be required to provide such services for
LRP 57492 (SEA the next 2 years. The school district intended to cease services at
CT 2003) the students 18th birthday and contended that the district had
provided the student with such services as a guidance counselor,
business entrepreneurship course, and collaborative computer
For parent: Transition plan was inadequate and
not individualized to meet the students needs. The
school district did not consider recommendations
from independent evaluation. The district was or-
dered to provide counseling services and conduct an
evaluation for additional transition needs.
For parent: Transition plan was not individualized
to meet the personal and interpersonal needs of the
student. The school district was ordered to hire an
independent consultant to determine which services
to provide and how long the school district must
provide them.
43

program.

District Obligation

Case Student data Issue Decision

Birmingham Pub-- 23-year-old male Parent wanted the school district to transport the student from For school district: The school district had provided
lic Schools, 38 with Asperger community college, provide job shadowing, provide vocational all that IDEA required for transition services.
IDELR 257 (SEA syndrome and academic support, and place the student in computer-related
MI 2003) job. The school district maintained that the student met gradua-
tion requirements and that adequate transition services were
provided.
North Hunterdon/ 22-year-old male Parent requested reimbursement for placement at comprehensive For school district (in part): Transition obligations
Voorhees Regional with multiple multiyear transition program focused on achieving and complet- need not maximize benefit but must offer mean-
High Board of Ed- disabilities ing the transition from school to community. The school district ingful benefit. The school district did give the stu-
ucation, 41 IDELR argued that it had offered reasonable transition opportunities, in- dent a genuine chance to explore options beyond
171 (SEA NJ 2004) cluding a community-based instruction program, summer job high school.
program, and guidance counselor.
(appendix continues)
(appendix continued)

District Obligation

Case Student data Issue Decision

Susquehanna 19-year-old female The parent alleged that the school district did not provide tran- For the parent: The school districts failure to provide
Township School with dyslexia, sition service of 1-year postschool program for college preparation agreed-upon transition services meant that the IEP
District v. Jelani J., memory disorder, as specified in the IEP. The school district argued that because was not fully implemented. In order to graduate, the
39 IDELR 5 (PA and ADHD the student met graduation requirements, the district was no student must complete the IEP program, as well as
Comm. Ct., 2003) longer required to provide FAPE and that the district met tran- earn credits for graduation. The school district had
sition obligations by providing an opportunity to apply to a post- agreed to provide a 1-year placement; its offer to
secondary program. help the student apply to the program only provides
a de minimis benefit.
Washoe County 17-year-old female Parent proposed placement at a magnet school designed to pre- For school district: The students goal could be best
School District, 37 with PD and MD pare students for college. The school district argued that the IEP implemented at a regular high school campus, which
IDELR 28 (SEA was designed to assist the student in transition from high school. would provide FAPE.
NV 2002)
44

Wisconsin Dells Postgraduate 21- Parent argued that the school district failed to provide adequate For school district: The school district is not required
School District, 35 year-old male with transition services by not exposing the student to a variety of job to provide every possible job experience. It pro-
IDELR 145 (SEA MD and SI experiences. The school district countered that transition was vided job experiences based on needs and interests.
WI 2001) planned, appropriate agencies were contacted, and the student
was evaluated. The student benefited from the services and suc-
cessfully transitioned to employment.

Appropriateness of the Transition Plan

Case Student data Issue Decision

Arlington Central 20-year-old male Parent challenged the transition services provided to the student For school district: Failure to include a statement of
School District, 28 with ED and TBI during the past 3 years. The IEP lacked a statement of transition services was a technical defect that did not deprive
IDELR 1130 (SEA services. The school district showed that despite a lack of state- the student of FAPE. Transition services provided
NY 1998) ment, the student was provided with a variety of services, includ- were appropriate.
ing vocational training, community living, and work experience.
The student also enrolled in courses on the basis of his interests.
(appendix continues)
(appendix continued)

Appropriateness of the Transition Plan

Case Student data Issue Decision

Bret Harte Union 18-year-old male After the student graduated and received his diploma, the parent For school district: The school district provided the
High School Dis- with OHI (Chronic challenged the appropriateness of the students transition services. student with adequate transition services to assist
trict, 30 IDELR fatigue syndrome) The school district claimed to provide a variety of appropriate him in his move from high school to college.
(SEA CA 1999) services (e.g., providing connection to junior colleges disability
student services; retaining an independent vocational consultant;
contacting the Department of Rehabilitation to provide tuition,
transportation, and books; and initiating a meeting with an LD
specialist at a college).
Board of Education 17-year-old male School district appealed decision that the IEP denied FAPE. Fail- For parent: The school districts deficiencies in tran-
of the Arlington with OHI ure to develop transition plan was harmless error. The parent sition planning were substantive violations that de-
Central School Dis- enrolled the student in a private school and requested tuition nied the student FAPE.
trict, 36 IDELR 193 reimbursement.
(SEA NY 2001)
Board of Education 21-year-old female Parent alleged that a transition statement omitted from the IEP For school district: Although the transition statement
45

of the City School with MD and ED denied FAPE. The school district worked on daily living and was deficient, the student was successfully transi-
District of the City community-based skills. tioned to a day rehabilitation placement.
of New York, 32
IDELR 24 (SEA
NY 1999)
Bonita Unified 17-year-old male Parent requested development of transition plan for student. Al- For parent: The school district was ordered to pro-
School District, 27 with SED and LD though no specified services were requested, the student indicated vide the student with transition services, including
IDELR 248 (SEA an interest in studying diesel mechanics and joining the Marine a work experience program and the development
CA 1998) Corps. The school district had recorded the students interests of employment and other postschool adult-living
and minimal work experience in an earlier IEP. objectives.
Elmhurst School 19-year-old male Parent argued that the student was not prepared to graduate and For school district: Transition plans were in place for
District 205, 34 with LD and sought compensatory education until the students 21st birthday the students entire high-school career, and the stu-
IDELR 112 (SEA ADHD for denial of FAPE. The school district maintained that gradua- dent made substantial progress on those goals. Al-
IL 2000) tion with a regular diploma was appropriate, that the transition though the student may need additional preparation
plans were adequate, and that the student could attend commu- for community college, the school district is not re-
nity college with support for LD. sponsible for that preparation after the student has
graduated.
(appendix continues)
(appendix continued)

Appropriateness of the Transition Plan

Case Student data Issue Decision

Half-Hollow Hills High-school age Parent argued that the IEP failed to specify transition needs and For school district: Despite a failure to provide a
Central School male with autism services as required by IDEA. The school district claimed that a formal statement of transition services needs, the
District, 35 IDELR variety of transition services had been offered to the student school district offered a useful program for success
169 (SEA NY 2001) throughout his high school career. in school, postschool, and independent living.
Houston Indepen- 16-year-old male Parent claimed that the school district failed to provide vocational For school district: Although the notice to the parent
dent School Dis- with autism testing and transition services. The school district argued that it did not specify that transition services were to be dis-
trict, 32 IDELR 79 had administered a vocational assessment to plan postschool ac- cussed at the IEP meeting and the IEP lacked a tran-
(SEA TX 1999) tivities and provided counseling and field trips to prepare the sition statement, the student received transition
student for college. The school district attempted to arrange a activities to prepare for postschool life.
meeting to plan transition, but the parent resisted.
Livermore Valley 21-year-old female Student argued that due to lack of transition services a diploma For student: Despite meeting standards for gradua-
Joint Unified with multiple should not have been awarded and that she continues to be eli- tion, the student did not complete the prescribed
School District, 33 disabilities gible for special education services. The school district maintained course of study due to absence of transition plans
46

IDELR 288 (SEA that the student had met graduate requirements, ending eligibility concerning communication needs.
CA 2000) for special education.
Los Angeles Unified 23-year-old female Parent sought an additional year in the community-based in- For school district: The student met her goals of
School District, 37 with MD and struction program due to inappropriate travel mobility training. travel with adult supervision and travel safety.
IDELR 55 (SEA Down syndrome The school district maintained that transition services addressed
CA 2001) the students travel mobility needs.
Muscogee County 17-year-old male Parent complained that transition plan had not been updated For parent (in part): Although the transition plan
School System, 26 with Down and requested that students transition program include partici- was not updated annually as required by IDEA, the
IDELR 41 (SEA syndrome pation in a magnet vocational program. The school district student received FAPE. Failure to agree on placement
GA 1997) claimed that the placement was inappropriate due to safety con- was no excuse for failure to update transition plan
cerns and an inability to provide educational benefit. annually. The school district was ordered to develop
an updated transition plan.
Portland School 20-year-old female Parent alleged that the school district failed to provide instruction For parent: Because bus instruction was listed on
District, 30 IDELR with Down for riding the city bus system as part of transition services. The the IEP, the school district must provide it or initiate
836 (SEA OR 1999) syndrome school district argued that the parent did not consent to the stu- a change in the IEP due to lack of parental consent.
dents participation in that instruction, so bus instruction did not
happen.

(appendix continues)
(appendix continued)

Appropriateness of the Transition Plan

Case Student data Issue Decision

San Diego Unified 18-year-old male Parent argued that the reading program of past 3 years was inap- For parent: The school districts program did not
School District, 36 with Down propriate and did not facilitate postschool employment. The teach the student to read information useful in his
IDELR 172 (SEA syndrome school district argued that its program was geared to community goals of supported employment and independent
CA 2002) needs after graduation. living.
School Administra- 18-year-old male Parent alleged that the school district failed to provide a transi- For school district: Although a formalized plan was
tive District #1, 25 with LD tion plan until the students senior year of high school. The school not developed in timely manner, the student received
IDELR 1256 (SEA district argued that although a formalized plan was not devel- appropriate transition services. Failure to formulate
ME 1997) oped, the student and parent participated in transition meetings, plan was a nonprejudicial procedure violation re-
adult-service agencies were involved, and the student received a sulting in no harm to the student or the denial of
variety of transition services from his guidance counselor. FAPE.
St. Paul ISD #615, 20-year-old female Parent filed a complaint that the school district denied the stu- For parent: The school district was ordered to pro-
28 IDELR 210 with unspecified dent FAPE by failing to adequately assess the students transition vide compensatory services of counseling and tu-
47

(SEA MN 1998) disability needs and provide transition services over a 3-year period. The toring, a notetaker for college classes, and use of the
school district disagreed with the amount of compensatory ser- school districts computers and software.
vices to be provided to the student.
T.F. v. North Penn 18-year-old male Parent argued that the school district did not provide transition For parent: The student was denied FAPE due to a
School District, 31 with dyslexia and planning after the student turned 16 years old. After filing two failure to involve the parent in transition planning
IDELR 2 (ED PA dysgraphia state-level complaints, the parent filed due process to secure an and a failure to provide transition services.
1999) order for transition services. The school district argued that it
had no obligation to provide services because the student had
graduated.
Thornton Frac- 20-year-old male Parent claimed that the school district failed to conduct a comp- For parent: The school district did not evaluate the
tional Township with LD and ED rehensive vocational evaluation and provide vocational training. student to determine transition supports or ser-
High School Dis- The school district argued that the IEP included transition plan- vices need for the student to enroll in technical
trict #128, 36 ning and that the parents expressed concern about the program school, which was his postschool vision.
IDELR 283 (SEA only after the student graduated.
IL 2002)

Note. TBI = traumatic brain injury; LD = learning disability; MD = mental disability; PD = physical disability; OHI = other health impaired; SED/ED = serious emotional disturbance/emotional distur-
bance; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; SI = speech impairment; ADD = attention-deficit disorder; FAPE = free and appropriate public education; IEP = Individualized Education Pro-
gram; IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.