please do an article review on one of the two uploaded articles, choose whichever is easiest for you.

instructions 3 pages not including title and reference(should only be one reference).

 please also include the 2 following subjects alongside any other subject you find to add 

 Primary problems and or issue addressed  and  Educational relevance 

Experiences of parents of children with special
needs at school entry: a mixed method approach

A. Siddiqua*† and M. Janus*†

*Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, and
†Offord Centre for Child Studies, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

Accepted for publication 4 December 2016

Keywords
children with special
needs, family-centred
services, linkages, quality
of services, transition to
school

Correspondence: Ayesha
Siddiqua, Department of
Clinical Epidemiology and
Biostatistics, McMaster Uni-
versity, 1280 Main Street
West, Hamilton ON L8S
4L8, Canada.
E-mail:
ayesha.summer@gmail.
com

Abstract
Background The transition from pre-school to kindergarten can be complex for children who need

special assistance due to mental or physical disabilities (children with ‘special needs’). We used a

convergent mixed method approach to explore parents’ experiences with service provision as their

children transitioned to school.

Methods Parents (including one grandparent) of 37 children aged 4 to 6 years completed measures

assessing their perceptions of and satisfaction with services. Semi-structured interviews were also

conducted with 10 parents to understand their experience with services.

Results Post transition, parents reported lower perceptions of services and decreased satisfaction

than pre-transition. The following themes emerged from the qualitative data: qualities of services

and service providers, communication and information transfer, parent advocacy, uncertainty about

services, and contrasts and contradictions in satisfaction. The qualitative findings indicate that

parents were both satisfied and concerned with aspects of the post-transition service provision.

Conclusions While the quantitative results suggested that parents’ experience with services

became less positive after their children entered school, the qualitative findings illustrated the

variability in parents’ experiences and components of service provision that require improvements

to facilitate a

successful school entry.

Introduction

Facilitating successful transition to school is crucial for

establishing the foundation of children’s future development

(Bowes et al. 2009). Positive transition is associated with

favourable academic and social outcomes (Berlin et al. 2011).

Children who experience social and behavioural problems

early in their school careers are more likely to continue facing

these problems as they progress through their schooling

(Margetts 2002). Negative academic and social trajectories are

more difficult to alter by mid-elementary school years,

highlighting the importance of supporting successful transition

to kindergarten (Wildenger & McIntyre 2012).

Transition to kindergarten can be particularly challenging

for children who need assistance with developmental or

physical disabilities (children with ‘special needs’; Janus &

Siddiqua 2015). Every year, approximately 3.7% of all children

entering kindergarten in Canada have special needs that

prevent optimal development (Statistics Canada 2008). While

children’s special needs may be identified prior to school entry,

an Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC)

within the school board decides whether a student should be

identified as an exceptional pupil requiring special education

(Ministry of Education 2001). By law, the IPRC reviews all

relevant information available for the child, including an

education assessment as well as health and psychological

assessments and decides whether the student should be placed

in a special education class or in a regular class with

appropriate special education services (Ministry of Education

2001). During transition, these children and their families may

Original Article doi:10.1111/cch.12443

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd566

bs_bs_banner Child: care, health and development

experience changes in the services they receive, as well as

changes in providers, locations and frequency of these services

(Daley et al. 2011). The services are often inadequate to

support transition to school among children with special needs

(Janus et al. 2007). In a US study, parents identified child-

centred transitions to be effective and communication between

school and home as a vital link for successful transitions

(Stoner et al. 2007). Currently, there is a lack of research

evidence on factors contributing to a successful process of

transition to school for Canadian children with special needs.

The objectives of this study are (i) to quantitatively examine

parents’ perceptions of and satisfaction with their child’s

services before and after their children with special needs are

enrolled in school and (ii) to examine how qualitative data

help us gain a more nuanced understanding of parents’

perceptions of and satisfaction with services during transition.

Methods

Study design

A convergent approach was selected because it is the most

appropriate design given the parallel objectives of this study,

exploring parents’ experience with services using both

quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell & Plano-Clark

2011) to develop a more complete understanding of parents’

experiences.

Procedure

Data were collected in a prospective longitudinal cohort study

which focused on the process of transition to school for

children with special needs in Ontario (Janus et al. 2008) from

prior to school entry until the end of the first school year.

Before school entry, parents participated in a semi-structured

interview and completed a set of questionnaires. In the fall,

questionnaire and interview data were collected on the child’s

health, functional status, service history (at intake) and the

experience of

transition to school.

Study sample

The sample included 37 children with identified special needs

(ages 4 to 6 years) and their families. These were children whose

‘behavioural, communicational, intellectual, physical or multi-

ple exceptionalities are such that (they are) considered to need

placement in a special education program’ (Ontario Ministry of

Education 2006). Parents who were unable to read and speak

English and those with a cognitive impairment were excluded

from the primary study. As per ethics requirements, families

were requested to contact us in response to information and

flyers; thus, it is impossible to provide an accurate recruitment

rate. Families were approached through several channels:

preschools/daycare centres, early identification agencies, early

year rehabilitation programmes, community centres and the

school boards from three cities in Southern Ontario.

Participants were selected for the qualitative phase by using

extreme case sampling. Among all interviewed participants, 10

participants who had the largest decline in satisfaction, as

measured by the scores on the Client Satisfaction Question-

naire (Larsen et al. 1979), obtained prior to school entry and

were selected at the end of the first school year.

Measurement strategy

Prior to school entry and at the end of the first school year,

parents completed the Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC)

assessing their perceptions of services and the Client

Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) evaluating their satisfaction

with services. For the period prior to school, these measures

assessed experience with services received outside of school,

whereas at the end of the first school year, they measured

perceptions of school-based services.

Measure of processes of care

Responses on the MPOC were used to measure parents’

perceptions of whether the services their children receive were

family-centred (King et al. 1995; King et al. 1997). MPOC is a

self-report measure with questions in five scales: enabling and

partnership, providing general information, providing specific

information about the child, coordinated and comprehensive

care for the child and family, and respectful and supportive

care. We used the shorter, 20-item version of the MPOC,

which is a well-established instrument with good psychometric

properties (King et al. 2004).

Client Satisfaction Questionnaire

The CSQ was used to measure parents’ satisfaction with their

experiences with a target situation or service (Larsen et al.

1979). This is a generic eight-item questionnaire that correlates

strongly (up to 0.60) with MPOC scale scores (King et al. 1997)

but is not redundant. The pilot study conducted for the

primary study showed that this measure had high internal

consistency (Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: 0.97) and good test–

retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.88).

Experiences of parents of children with special needs at school entry 567

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Child: care, health and development, 43, 4, 566–576

Semi-structured interviews

For the qualitative phase, a qualitative description study

(Neergaard et al. 2009) was conducted to explore parents’

perceptions of and satisfaction with service provision as their

children with special needs entered school. During the semi-

structured interviews, the parents were asked about the child’s

diagnosis, health and functional status and about service

history at intake and the experience of transition to school.

This paralleled the data collected in the quantitative phase,

where the parents indicated their perceptions of and

satisfaction with services.

Analyses

Quantitative data analysis was conducted by using statistical

software SPSS v20. Paired t-tests were conducted to compare

the parents’ MPOC and CSQ responses in the two time

points.

Qualitative analysis of the interview data was conducted by

using NVIVO 10 software. Principles of conventional content

analysis (Hsieh & Shannon 2005) guided the coding and

analysis. The analytic steps included deriving initial codes from

exact words in the data that appeared to represent key concepts

of interest, development of new codes to categorize text that

did not fit into initial codes and sorting related codes into

categories that reflected parents’ perceptions of and satisfaction

with services (Hsieh & Shannon 2005). The preliminary coding

scheme was revised as the analysis progressed to incorporate

new insights arising from the data.

For the mixed method data analysis, data from all MPOC

scales were selected as they evaluate the parents’ perceptions of

services. Then, the interview transcripts were read multiple

times to identify illustrative comments highlighting the

parents’ experience with services in relation to the MPOC

components of service provision.

A merged analysis display approach was taken to compare

the quantitative results and qualitative findings (O’Cathain

et al. 2010). A 5 × 5 merged data analysis table was created,

where the qualitative themes were arrayed with the five MPOC

scales. The display presents qualitative quotes representing

major themes across MPOC scales to assess how the qualitative

data provided a more complete understanding of parents’

perceptions of and satisfaction with services.

Ethics

Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Hamilton

Integrated Research Ethics Board.

Results

Quantitative phase study participants

In total, 37 children and their families met the eligibility

criteria for this study. Overall, 33 (89%) children had a

diagnosis at intake and 12 (32.4%) received updates to their

diagnosis post transition (Table 1). The two most common

diagnoses were autism spectrum disorder (27%) and develop-

mental delay (19%; Table 2). Children with no diagnosis (8%)

were also included because they were suspected to have a

diagnosis, although it not confirmed at the time of the study.

Parents’ perceptions of and satisfaction with services before and
after school entry

The parents’ perceptions of family-centredness of services

differed before and after their children entered school

Table 1. Demographic profiles of study participants in the quantitative
and qualitative phases of the study

Quantitative phase
(n = 37)

Qualitative phase
(n = 10)

Characteristics

No. of participants
(%)

No. of participants
(%)

Diagnosis at intake 33 (89%) 10 (100.0)
Updates to diagnosis 12 (32.4) 3 (30.0)
Child’s gender

Female 11 (29.7) 1 (10.0)
Male 26 (70.3) 9 (90.0)

Parent ethnicity
Aboriginal 2 (5.4) 1 (10.0)
Black 2 (5.4)
South Asian 1 (2.7)
White/Caucasian 31 (83.8) 9 (90.0)
Other 1 (2.7)

Parent educational level
Some secondary/high school 2 (5.4)
Completed secondary/high

school
10 (27.0) 4 (40.0)

Some community college 1 (2.7) 1 (10.0)
Completed community college 11 (29.7) 2 (20.0)
Some university 3 (8.1)
Completed university 4 (10.8)
Graduate degree 6 (16.2) 3 (30.0)

Family income (Cdn $)
0–9999 1 (2.7)
30–39 999 4 (10.8) 2 (20.0)
40–49 999 9 (24.3) 1 (10.0)
50–59 999 4 (10.8) 2 (20.0)
60–69 999 1 (2.7)
70–79 999 1 (2.7)
80–89 999 8 (21.6) 3 (30.0)
90–99 999 2 (5.4)
More than 100 000 7 (18.9) 2 (20.0)

568 A. Siddiqua and M. Janus

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Child: care, health and development, 43, 4, 566–576

(Table 3). The parents reported that significantly more general

information was provided prior to school entry than post

transition. The effect size of this difference was 0.37. While the

majority of the differences did not reach statistical significance,

the parents had consistently more positive perceptions of

services pre-transition. The effect sizes of these differences

were generally small/moderate: With the exception of the

enabling and partnership scale, they ranged from 0.25 to 0.28.

The parents’ satisfaction with services was higher prior to

school entry than post transition, although this difference did

not reach statistical significance, with the effect size of 0.21

(Table 4).

Qualitative phase study participants

All children had a diagnosis at intake, while three received

updates to diagnosis post transition (Table 1). The two most

common diagnoses were developmental delay (50%) and

autism spectrum disorder (30%; Table 2).

Qualitative themes

Five themes emerged from the data pertaining to the parents’

perceptions of and satisfaction with services after their children

with special needs were enrolled in school. Each theme and

relevant subthemes are described in the succeeding texts,

accompanied by illustrative quotes where the use of ‘I’ refers to

the interviewer’s voice and ‘P’ to the parent’s voice.

Theme I: qualities of services and service providers

The first major theme pertained to parents’ perceptions of the

qualities of services and service providers. This theme,

composed of six subthemes, reflects the parents’ views

regarding the positive traits of school staff and negative

notions about school and timeliness and individualization of

services. Furthermore, the parents described the cooperative-

ness of service providers. The parents also commented on the

disorganization of information during transition.

Positive traits of school staff

The parents generally had positive perceptions about their

child’s schoolteacher and educational assistant (EA). The

parents described the teacher by using terms such as ‘caring’,

‘supportive’ and ‘competent’. Some parents reported that they

found that the EA was ‘relaxed’, ‘understanding’ and ‘positive’

with their child, and that the EA did not overwhelm the child

in supporting their learning in class.

P: …I know in class he’s [child] doing very well. He has his

EA with him but I don’t think she’s you know glued to him

Table 2. Diagnoses of children participating in the study

Quantitative phase
(n = 37)
Qualitative phase
(n = 10)
No. of participants
(%)
No. of participants
(%)

Diagnosis
Angelman syndrome 1(3%)

Attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder

2 (5%)

Autism spectrum disorder 10 (27%) 3 (30%)
Coffin–Lowry syndrome 2 (5%)
Developmental delay 7 (19%) 5 (50%)
Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder 1 (3%)
Nonverbal learning disability 1 (3%)
Pervasive developmental disorder 2 (5%)
Rett syndrome 1 (3%)
Speech delay 3 (8%)
No diagnosis 4 (8%)
Multiple diagnoses 3 (8%) 2 (20%)

Table 3. Means, standard deviations and effect sizes of difference between families’ pre-transition and post-transition judgments on the Measure of
Processes of Care (MPOC) scales

MPOC domains

Pre-transition
Mean (SD)

Post-transition
Mean (SD) Effect size P-value

Enabling and partnership 5.1 (1.53) 4.9 (1.86) 0.12 0.486
Providing general information 4.0 (1.93) 3.3 (1.90) 0.37 0.020
Providing specific information 5.5 (1.25) 5.1 (1.63) 0.28 0.134
Coordinated and comprehensive care 5.5 (1.26) 5.1 (1.61) 0.28 0.124
Respectful and supportive care 5.7 (0.91) 5.4 (1.46) 0.25 0.171

Table 4. Mean, standard deviation and effect size of difference between
families’ pre-transition and post-transition judgments on the total score of
the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ)

Pre-transition
Mean (SD)
Post-transition
Mean (SD) Effect size P-value

CSQ total 26.0 (4.60) 24.7 (7.51) 0.21 0.293

Experiences of parents of children with special needs at school entry 569

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Child: care, health and development, 43, 4, 566–576

and you know helping him with every single thing. He’s

doing a lot on his own.

The parents described many examples of service providers

taking the initiative to support their child. The parents

reported that the school was proactive in noticing the child’s

problems. One parent indicated that the school initiated a

communication book to facilitate communication between the

school and themselves. Another parent reported that the

teacher and principal pushed the Board of Education to

provide an EA for the child. However, several parents also

reported that the school did not take initiatives to serve the

child and their families.

Negative notions about school

All parents expressed negative perceptions about service

provision by the school system. Some parents felt that the

school offered inadequate services for the child, while others

described the school as not being helpful for the child and

wasting the child’s time.

P: …the autism team from the school happened to go into

his [child] kindergarten class, not for him but for somebody

else and noticed him and said how come that child’s not

signed up, and the teacher said well he should be. And he

wasn’t…but you think that they would try and fix that.

They’re like well we’re going to put him in special class

anyway so let’s have meetings about special class…in the

meantime he’s wasted a year of school time going there…

Timeliness of services

Issues of timeliness in service provision ranged from early

availability to long wait times. One parent indicated that the

Individual Education Plan was completed before the IPRC

meeting. The parents reported that the occupational therapist

(OT) and physician were available in a timely manner based on

the child’s needs. However, the parents also provided examples

of delay in service provision in relation to the child’s

programming at school, with long waitlist for services being

a common complaint among parents post-transition.

I: …has the ASD team been involved at all in the school?

P: [Laughs] They haven’t come to see him [child] at all. He

doesn’t have any kind of programming…What he does

have is the one-on-one EA…his programming from my

understanding has not been modified. Like there’s nothing,

no one has come in…But I’m not really sure why they

haven’t come in yet. I mean it’s December you know.

Individualization of services

Several parents reported that their child was receiving

individualized services, whereas some parents indicated the

need for modified services to meet their child’s needs. Many

parents reported that there was a designated EA for their child

at school. Some also described the staff’s awareness of the

child’s needs and working to meet them: ‘…I think [the

principal] certainly has been very much aware of [child’s] needs

and tried to do everything necessary’.

For individualizing services, the parents expressed the

perceived need for tailored accommodation. The parents

commonly indicated that there was a need for the EA to

modify care to help their child.

P: …it’s very common for EAs to hover too much when they

don’t know the kids and their abilities very well… [Child] is a

very head strong and very determined child…you have to

many times push and push…but once he knows he can’t get

away with it, he’ll do it…

P: …if he thinks he can get away with it, he will…she’s [EA]

a really sweet woman…she’s always very positive with

him…

P: But I keep saying to her you need to push him…Make

him do it…

Cooperativeness of service providers

The parents described a spectrum of cooperativeness demon-

strated by service providers. In terms of cooperation between

service providers and parents, the parents reported both

positive and negative examples. Some parents described how

the EA and school responded to the parents’ suggestions and

requests, with one parent reporting that the school argued with

her instead of providing her child with the needed services.

P: …the school has done nothing, absolutely nothing…

I: So what kinds of things would he have lost from the

daycare once he went into school?

P: …PT, OT, speech – everything…They have done

nothing but argue with me.

The parents provided examples of varying cooperation

among school and other service providers. One parent indicated

that the school did not cooperate with Intensive Behavioural

Intervention staff. Another reported that while school initially

was not open to Intensive Behavioural Intervention staff, they

eventually welcomed them to the school

system.

570 A. Siddiqua and M. Janus

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Child: care, health and development, 43, 4, 566–576

Disorganization of information

Several parents described situations where information related

to their child’s diagnosis was not organized within the school

system.

P: …I think in October or November, they [school] sent me

a letter saying do you think maybe we could have a

diagnosis on [child]? I couldn’t believe it…They were given

his complete medical history. He’s diagnosed with autism…

they just accepted him being autistic about a week ago.

I: So what does the school say happened?

P: They say that they never got a diagnosis on him, which is

b—t because we had a preschool meeting in April before he

started school in September.

Not transferring diagnosis information to the right individ-

uals within the school system resulted in a lack of needed

support for the child as well as dissatisfaction among

caregivers. One parent described the need to complete the

same paperwork multiple times for school. The parents

reported that disorganization of information was an issue for

early intervention service providers as well, as they lost the

child’s paperwork.

Theme II: communication and information transfer

The second major theme, composed of two subthemes,

reflected the parents’ perceptions regarding communication

and information transfer between service providers and

families, as well as among service providers themselves.

Communication and information transfer between service
providers and families

The parents described a spectrum of communication and

information sharing between service providers and families.

The parents’ perceptions of pre-transition service providers

were largely positive. Many parents described that the daycare

shared information with them and that they had good

conversations with daycare teachers. Post transition, the

parents reported having ongoing communication with the

school. Some parents indicated that they used a communica-

tion book with the school and teacher to stay up to date with

their child’s progress in school.

Despite giving examples of regular communication with

school, many parents reported that there was lack of

information sharing by the school and teacher with parents.

Several parents described having little communication with the

principal. Some parents also mentioned lack of interaction

with the teacher and a paucity of feedback received from them.

P: …the teacher sometimes will send emails out but they’re

just like general emails to all the families, right? …there’s no

actual one-on-one communication with her…if there were

a concern I would assume that they would be contacting

me, right? Or they may you know mention something

through my nurses but you know you’re not really

supposed to go that way. They’re supposed to be

communicating with me directly…

Communication and information transfer between service
providers

Although the parents described some communication and

information transfer taking place between service providers,

they provided many more examples of limited interaction

between service providers. Some parents reported that the

school communicated with the daycare and that reports

were shared between the daycare and teacher at school.

However, in many cases, the parents reported a lack of

communication taking place between service

providers.

Several parents indicated that there was a disconnect in

communication between daycares and schools.

P: …I also really, really like the teachers he [child] has in

the daycare, the ECE he has there and then I quite like his

teacher…although funny enough, there’s a disconnect

between those two groups. It’s almost like when the

daycare teachers come to pick them up when it’s dismissal

time at school, there’s never any time or there’s never sort

of a lot of information passed back and forth…

One parent described several situations where the teacher

did not receive important information from the school to

support the child with transition.

P: She [teacher] gave me papers to fill out while I sat down

and talked to her… then she had said to me ‘okay, and what

are your expectations for the year’? and I said to her ‘well,

hoping that we can make sure that he [child] doesn’t have

any issues with being behind…’ She goes ‘does he have any

other issues besides for that’? and I said ‘well yah, but that is

all in the report…’ and she just sort of looked at me funny

and said ‘what report?’ and I said ‘we did an intake meeting in

March I believe it was’…and she goes ‘I don’t have any of

that’ and I’m like ‘pardon, what do you mean you don’t have

it’ and I said ‘it should be in his records…’ and I told her what

the principal had written down and it was requested that be

put in that class so that he can built on his strengths that way.

Experiences of parents of children with special needs at school entry 571

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Child: care, health and development, 43, 4, 566–576

Theme III: parent advocacy

The third major theme, composed of two subthemes, reflected

the parents’ perceived need for parental advocacy and parental

advocacy for accessing services.

Perceived need for parental advocacy

Many parents described the perceived need to advocate for

their child. One parent explained that it was very important

to get involved in school council to ‘have some say’.

P: …I’m also on the school council. Put my foot in there so

that I have some say, [Laughs] which I think is really

important for parents with children of special needs. You

need to get on to the school council…You can present

problems if there are some…

Many parents addressed the need to follow up with service

providers.

P: …[husband] and I both remember sitting in the school

before [child] even started, introducing everyone to [child]

and his challenges and there were all of the representatives

like resource teachers…we were told that they would be

contacting us…And we have never, ever gotten that phone

call…I think I need to go back…figure out what’s

happened.

Parental advocacy for accessing services

The parents described taking initiative to find services and

resources for their child after school entry. This included

arranging special equipment for the child in class, transpor-

tation to school, funding to attend daycare and private therapy.

They also indicated inquiring about the child’s status on the

waitlists for various therapies, potential testing for child and

working to arrange visits by school staff to the daycare.

Many parents described their effort to maintain continuity

of services post transition, including making up for the loss

of services after school began. Not surprisingly, one parent

reported feeling overwhelmed by having to arrange different

services post transition.

P: …I would be really surprised if we saw funding before

July so I think in terms of this academic year it won’t be an

issue. I think the issue is going to be next September –

what do we do? …I have no idea…I just can’t go there

right now, I just feel so overwhelmed trying to deal with

like the really pressing issues like let’s find an OT and let’s

get a speech plan in place for the New Year when our

coverage renews…

Theme IV: uncertainty about services

The fourth major theme, composed of two subthemes,

reflected the parents’ uncertainty in knowledge pertaining to

service provision and information management.

Uncertainty about service provision

Many parents described uncertainty about the services their

child received or could receive after school entry.

I: …What would the ASD team at school do, do you know?

P: I have no idea. I know the school called the ASD team,

the Board ASD team and said do you have [child] on your

list? And they said we didn’t but we do now. Now what that

means and what’s going to happen I have no idea.

The parents commonly expressed uncertainty about where

services came from and how services were provided, as well as

uncertainty regarding the continuity of services post transition.

The issues included decisions made regarding the type of service,

benefits of services, length of waitlists, paperwork needed to

obtain services at school and activities that take place at school

Uncertainty about information management

Several parents expressed concerns about information sharing

between service providers.

P: The only thing of reports, the only thing I did was

provide the book that I had done…so that we could go

through it as a group together and I could talk about all the

challenges and strategies and give them some ideas of how

he [child] is…there was no other information shared or

reports…Whether or not the school got reports from, I’m

sure from [early intervention service provider (a)] and

[early intervention service provider (b)], I’m imagining that

they would…I: That’s what I was wondering…P: I mean he

has I guess a file now on him so I don’t know.

Some parents also described their uncertainty about

organization of information pertaining to the child, while

others expressed uncertainty regarding sources of information

and the school’s information keeping practice.

Theme V: contrasts and contradictions in satisfaction

The fifth major theme, composed of two subthemes,

reflected the parents’ satisfaction with services and service

providers, as well as dissatisfaction with services and service

providers. In many cases, the same parents expressed

feelings in both subthemes.

572 A. Siddiqua and M. Janus

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Child: care, health and development, 43, 4, 566–576

Satisfaction with services and service providers

The parents expressed satisfaction with many services provided

to their child. They were pleased with the child care preparing

the child for transition by visiting the school before entry.

Some parents were satisfied with the one-on-one support

provided to their child by the EA, as well as the special meal

accommodation made by the principal to include their child in

the lunch programme.

The parents were also pleased with many service providers

who served their child prior to school entry and post transition,

including preschool, child care and school teachers: ‘…we have

hit good [school] teachers…The teachers that genuinely love doing

what they do and care about the kids…’ Many parents were also

satisfied with the school, EA, principal, vice principal, physician,

physician’s staff and speech pathologist.

Dissatisfaction with services and service providers

Some parents were disappointed with the lack of diagnosis for

their child and the delay in service provision as a result. Some

parents expressed strong dissatisfaction with the school system.

I: Really? Is the waitlist [for OT, PT, and speech] that long?

P: Yeah…

P: …when they talk their tongue is split right down the

middle. Oh the best years are 0-6, we got to help them…

Wait, you know. So very, very discouraged with the school

system.

The parents were frustrated with the unavailability of an aide

for their child in school and with disorganization of services

despite good intentions of service providers. One parent was

frustrated with the school seeking answers from them when

there were challenges with their child.

P: …the teacher, I’ve spoken to her a few times on the

phone. I appreciated her calling me at home on the one

Friday…she said I needed to tell you [child] had a very

difficult day and these are the challenges…I get frustrated

with ‘Well what’s changed? What’s different?’ I wish I could

have something…This has happened and this is why [child]

is being that way. But I don’t know.

Mixed method findings

The appendix presents the mixed method findings by using a

merged analysis display approach. The qualitative findings

pertaining to each of the MPOC scales show.

• Enabling and partnership (scale 1): Service providers were

both responsive to parents’ requests and inclusive in their

decision-making practices by involving parents.

• Providing general information (scale 2): There was evidence

that the service providers were both proactive and late in

relation to information sharing with parents; there was lack of

information shared, need for parent advocacy to access

information, uncertainty about services and satisfaction and

lack of satisfaction with information received.

• Providing specific information (scale 3): Parents received

information pertaining to their child from service providers,

although there were sometimes delays in receiving such

information, need for parent advocacy to access child-specific

information and uncertainty about child-specific information.

• Co-ordinated and comprehensive care (scale 4): Parents

were frustrated with disorganized services.

• Respectful and supportive care (scale 5): Service providers

listened to parents and welcomed parent advocacy.

The mixed method findings show that while some aspects of

the MPOC service components are working well, there is need

for improvement in other aspects.

Discussion

Our study highlights the value of using a mixed method

approach to generate a nuanced understanding of the process

of transition to school for children with special needs, due to

ambiguity of experiences. For example, while the quantitative

results indicated that the parents received less general and

child-specific information from service providers after school

entry, the qualitative findings highlighted the wide range of

communication and information sharing that took place

during transition. The qualitative findings showed that

information sharing routinely took place between parents

and pre-transition service providers. In contrast, the school

was only occasionally proactive in sharing information with

parents (e.g. by initiating a communication book). Echoing

findings of other studies, although some parents received

information from the school teacher through the communi-

cation book, there was a decrease in parent–teacher commu-

nication in kindergarten in comparison with preschool

(Anderson 2009; Applequist 2009; Quintero & McIntyre

2011; Stoner et al. 2007).

Poor exchange and organization of information have been

identified as significant barriers to successful transition for

children with special needs, as they often lead to gaps in service

Experiences of parents of children with special needs at school entry 573

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Child: care, health and development, 43, 4, 566–576

availability, duplication of procedures and cost inefficiencies

(Freedman & Boyer 2000; Janus et al. 2008). Our qualitative

findings show both occasional information sharing and a

disconnect in communication between institutions, demon-

strating the duality of relationships, while disorganization of

information within institutions was a consistent challenge for

parents during the transition process. Earlier studies demon-

strated that lack of linkages between school and agencies that

care for children in the preschool year resulted in repeated

assessments and completion of large volumes of paperwork by

parents (Janus et al. 2007; Janus et al. 2008). Our current study

expands these findings to indicate that it is often lack of

internal communication within agencies that may contribute

to parents’ frustrating experiences.

Partnerships among service providers and between

providers and families are integral elements of an effective

educational system for children with special needs. Previous

evidence documents that parents and professionals often fail to

successfully collaborate (Janus et al. 2008; Kohler 1999; Stoner

et al. 2007; Stormont et al. 2005). Through its mixed method

design, our study provides a new perspective on this

phenomenon. The parents acknowledge positive initiatives

on the part of the school, as well as good will of service

providers, even though the quantitative measurement reflects

mostly decline in relationships. This is particularly important

because higher perception of services is associated with

children’s adjustment at school (Janus & Siddiqua 2015).

Our findings make it clear that there are many positive capital

on which system-wide improvements can be built. A first step

in such improvement should give parents an opportunity to

identify their most pressing needs and concerns.

Post transition, the parents seemed to believe that schools did

not consider it problematic to delay special education service

availability to students in need. Long waitlists, lack of delivery of

promised services, uncertainty about them and inadequacy once

they were provided were also commonly reported in ours as well

as previous studies (Hamblin-Wilson & Thurman 1990; Leiter &

Krauss 2004). In terms of timeliness of services, because in some

instances services were offered and delivered on time, we believe

that a combination of lack of resources and overly bureaucratic

administrative process is responsible for the variation in

fulfilling the timely delivery (

Lutenbacher et al. 2005).

While schools sometimes took the initiative to meet the

children’s and their families needs, the need for parent

advocacy emerged as a prominent theme in the qualitative

data. The mixed method findings highlighted that it appeared

greater post transition than pre-transition. Themes related to

the need and importance of individually tailored services are

common in literature (Applequist 2009; Rous et al. 2007).

While some services are provided in school according to

children’s needs, parents usually have to take the initiative to

seek necessary and additional services (Floyd & Gallangher

1997). Negative feelings have been commonly expressed by

parents while advocating for their child given the amount of

time, energy and personal resources needed to ensure their

child’s needs were fulfilled at school (Anderson 2009;

Lutenbacher et al. 2005).

Generally, parents were less satisfied with service provision

after school entry than pre-transition as they received more

support from their early intervention service providers than

from the public schools (Hamblin-Wilson & Thurman 1990;

La Paro et al. 2000). Although the quantitative results show an

overall decline in satisfaction with services post transition, the

mixed method findings put them in context: Parents were also

pleased with many of the school staff and services, often at the

same time, which can also explain small effect sizes in

quantitative results.

The small sample size of this study increased the risk of

committing a type II error in the quantitative analyses. While it

may not be representative of other populations, the common-

alities we found with previous evidence suggest a degree of

generalizability. It is likely that parents’ reported perceptions of

and satisfaction with services depended on the degree to which

their expectations were met. To develop a more comprehensive

understanding of services from parents’ perspectives, future

studies can assess both expectations and perceptions of services

concurrently in larger and more diverse samples.

Because all qualitative interviews had been completed as part

of the primary study, there was no opportunity to probe

parents to gather more information on areas that were deemed

relevant for the current study. Member checking also could not

be conducted. Although the quantitative and qualitative phases

of the primary study were conducted in parallel and focused on

parents’ experiences with services, the themes arising from the

qualitative interviews did not include information pertaining

to every component of family-centred services considered in

the MPOC. This limited the level of content convergence

achieved in the mixed method analysis. Future convergent

mixed method studies should collect data on the same content

areas in the quantitative and qualitative phases, as this will

likely lead to greater content convergence.

Conclusion

This mixed method study contributed to the school

transition literature for children with special needs. The

574 A. Siddiqua and M. Janus

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Child: care, health and development, 43, 4, 566–576

quantitative results showed that parents’ perceptions of and

satisfaction with services declined post transition. While the

qualitative findings illustrated the variation in parents’

experiences with services during transition, there were some

overarching themes that reflected the common challenges

parents faced during this process.

Key messages

• There is limited evidence on experience of parents of

children with special needs at school entry in Canada.

• Mixed method research develops a nuanced understanding

of parents’ experiences of services during children’s

transition to school.

• There are several components of early year service

provision that require improvements to facilitate a

successful school entry.

Acknowledgements

This article describes research carried out by the first author

for her MSc degree under the supervision of the second

author. We would like to express our thanks to Dr Peter

Rosenbaum and Dr Wendy Sword for useful discussions

that greatly contributed to clarification of ideas presented in

this article.

References

Anderson, L. S. (2009) Mothers of children with special health care

needs: documenting the experience of their children’s care in the

school setting. Journal of School Nursing, 25, 342–351.

Applequist, K. L. (2009) Parent perspectives of special education:

framing of experiences for prospective special educators. Rural

Special Education Quarterly, 28, 3–16.

Berlin, L. J., Dunning, R. D. & Dodge, K. A. (2011) Enhancing the

transition to kindergarten: a randomized trial to test the efficacy of

the “Stars” Summer Kindergarten Orientation Program. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 247–254.

Bowes, J., Harrison, L., Sweller, N., Taylor, A. & Neilsen-Hewett, C.

(2009) From Child Care to School: Influences on Children’s

Adjustment and Achievement in the Year before School and the First

Year of School, Findings from the Child Care Choices Longitudinal

Extension Study. New South Wales Government, Department of

Community Services, Redfern, NSW.

Creswell, J. W. & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2011) Choosing a mixed

methods design. In: Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods

Research (eds S. B. Creswell & V. L. Plano-Clark), pp. 53–106. Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Daley, T. C., Munk, T. & Carlson, E. (2011) A national study of

kindergarten transition practices for children with disabilities. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 409–419.

Floyd, F. J. & Gallangher, E. M. (1997) Parental stress, care demands,

and use of support services for school-age children with disabilities

and behavior problems. Family Relations, 46, 359–371.

Freedman, R. I. & Boyer, N. C. (2000) The power to choose: supports

for families caring for individuals with developmental disabilities.

Health & Social Work, 25, 59–68.

Hamblin-Wilson, C. & Thurman, S. K. (1990) The transition from

early intervention to kindergarten: parental satisfaction and

involvement. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 55–61.

Hsieh, H. F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005) Three approaches to qualitative

content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.

Janus, M., Kopechanski, L., Cameron, R. & Hughes, D. (2008) In

transition: experiences of parents of children with special needs at

school entry. Early Childhood Education Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 35, 479–485.

Janus, M., Lefort, J., Cameron, R. & Kopechanski, L. (2007) Starting

kindergarten: transition issues for children with special needs.

Canadian Journal of Education, 30, 628–648.

Janus, M. & Siddiqua, A. (2015) Challenges for children with special

health needs at the time of transition to school. In: Challenges

Surrounding the Education of Children with Chronic Diseases (ed. M.

Gordon), pp. 168–202. IGI Global, Hershey, PA.

Janus, M., Szatmari, P., & Rosenbaum, P. (2008) Early school

adjustment for children with special needs: Social Science and

Humanities Research Council Grant.

King, G. A., Rosenbaum, P. L. & King, S. M. (1997) Evaluating family-

centred service using a measure of parents’ perceptions. Child: Care,

Health and Development, 23, 47–62.

King, S., King, G. & Rosenbaum, P. (2004) Evaluating health service

delivery to children with chronic conditions and their families:

development of a refined Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC-20).

Children’s Health Care, 33, 35–37.

King, S., Rosenbaum, P. & King, G. (1995) The Measure of Processes of

Care (MPOC): A Means to Assess Family-Centred Behaviours of

Health Care Providers. McMaster University, Neurodevelopmental

Clinical Research Unit, Hamilton, ON.

Kohler, F. W. (1999) Examining the services received by young children

with autism and their families: a survey of parent responses. Focus on

Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14, 150–158.

La Paro, K. M., Pianta, R. C. & Cox, M. J. (2000) Teachers’ reported

transition practices for children transitioning into kindergarten and

first grade. The Council for Exceptional Children’s Health Care, 67,

7–20.

Larsen, D. L., Attkisson, C. C., Hargreaves, W. A. & Nguyen, T. D.

(1979) Assessment of client/patient satisfaction: development of a

general scale. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2, 197–207.

Leiter, V. & Krauss, M. W. (2004) Claims, barriers, and satisfaction:

parents’ requests for additional special education services. Journal of

Disability Policy Studies, 15, 135–146.

Experiences of parents of children with special needs at school entry 575

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Child: care, health and development, 43, 4, 566–576

Lutenbacher, M., Karp, S., Ajero, G., Howe, D. & Williams, M. (2005)

Crossing community sectors: challenges faced by families of

children with special health care needs. Journal of Family Nursing,

11, 162–182.

Margetts, K. (2002) Transition to school — complexity and diversity.

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 10, 103–113.

Neergaard, M. A., Olesen, F., Andersen, R. S. & Sondergaard, J. (2009)

Qualitative description — the poor cousin of health research? BMC

Medical Research Methodology, 9.

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E. & Nicholl, J. (2010) Research methods &

reporting: three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods

studies. British Medical Journal, 341, 1147–1150.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2006) Education Act, Regulation 181/98.

Quintero, N. & McIntyre, L. L. (2011) Kindergarten transition

preparation: a comparison of teacher and parent practices for

children with autism and other developmental disabilities. Early

Childhood Education Journal, 38, 411–420.

Rous, B., Myers, C. T. & Stricklin, S. B. (2007) Strategies for

supporting transitions of young children with special needs and

their families. Journal of Early Intervention, 30, 1–18.

Statistics Canada (2008) Participation and Activity Limitation Survey

2006: A Profile of Education for Children with Disabilities in Canada.

Ottawa, ON.

Stoner, J. B., Angell, M. E., House, J. J. & Bock, S. J. (2007)

Transitions: perspectives from parents of young children autism

spectrum disorder (ASD). Journal of Developmental and Physical

Disabilities, 19, 23–39.

Stormont, M., Beckner, R., Mitchell, B. & Richter, M. (2005)

Supporting successful transition to kindergarten: general challenges

and specific implications for students with problem behaviour.

Psychology in Schools, 42, 765–778.

Wildenger, L. K. & McIntyre, L. L. (2012) Investigating the relation

between kindergarten preparation and child socio-behavioural

school outcomes. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40, 169–17.

576 A. Siddiqua and M. Janus

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Child: care, health and development, 43, 4, 566–576

This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the
accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.

Runninghead: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 1

Reported Accommodations and Supports Provided to Secondary and Postsecondary

Students with Disabilities

Lynn A. Newman, Ed.D.

SRI International

Joseph W. Madaus, Ph.D.

University of Connecticut

Citation: Newman, L., & Madaus, J. (2015). Reported accommodations and supports provided

to secondary and postsecondary students with disabilities: National perspective. Career

Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 30, 173-181. doi:

10.1177/2165143413518235.

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences,

U.S. Department of Education, though grant R305A120300 to SRI International. The

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 2

opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or

the U.S. Department of Education.

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 3

Abstract

There is a dearth of information on specific accommodations used by students with

disabilities at the secondary and postsecondary levels. Using data from the National

Longitudinal Transition Study-2, researchers examined a nationally-representative cohort

of 3,190 students with disabilities who reported that they had ever enrolled in a

postsecondary program since leaving high school. Analysis of differences in rates of self-

disclosure indicated that only 35% of youth with disabilities informed their college of

their disability. Whereas 98% received disability-based accommodations at the secondary

level, only 24% did so at the postsecondary level. Likewise, 59% received at least one

modification at the secondary level, but only 4% did in college. Implications for practice

and future research are discussed. These data have important implications for those

assisting students with disabilities in the transition to postsecondary education. High

school transition –planning teams, including students and students, need to be aware that

students will be required to self-disclose their disability to the proper

postsecondary

contact to receive accommodations and services. In addition, secondary planning teams

and parents must understand that although accommodations and modifications are

available, their use is far more limited at the college level. Thus, the use of

accommodations and modifications at the secondary level should be carefully examined

and the student should be involved in discussions related to why each is needed, how it is

used, and what benefits it provides. At the postsecondary level, it is essential that schools

be aware of the almost two thirds of students with disabilities on their campuses who

have chosen not to disclose their disability. It highlights the importance of colleges

considering universal design principals in developing curriculum. (Contains 1 table)

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 4

Reported Accommodations and Supports Provided to Secondary and Postsecondary

Students with Disabilities: National Perspective

Postsecondary institutions are required by law to provide reasonable academic

adjustments and auxiliary aids to otherwise qualified students with disabilities who

disclose their disability and request such assistance. Although these services may help

level the playing field regarding academic demands (Ofiesh, 2007) and enable the student

to better deal with the challenges of college, recent data from the National Longitudinal

Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (Newman et al., 2011) indicate that few students take

advantage of such supports. Indeed, NLTS2 data indicate that within 8 years of leaving

high school, 67% of students with disabilities who received special education services in

the K–12 system had enrolled in postsecondary education, yet only 28% disclosed that

they had disabilities in college, and less than 1 in 5 received accommodations (Newman,

et al., 2011).

The exact reasons for this low level of self-disclosure are not entirely clear but

might be attributable to a range of factors. These include the differing legal mandates

from K–12 to postsecondary education and differences in how the terms modifications,

accommodations, and academic adjustments are applied in both settings. In addition,

significant differences exist between K–12 and postsecondary education in determining

eligibility for services, including the need for greater student self-advocacy at the college

level. Once a student is found eligible, postsecondary institutions vary widely both in

types and availability of services and supports and in how they are provided (Madaus,

2010). Other data from the viewpoint of students point to the importance of self-advocacy

and indicate that some do not feel the need to disclose their disability or choose not to

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 5

because of fear of being stigmatized (Martin, 2010; Salzer, 2008). This paper discusses

each of these factors potentially affecting the receipt of accommodations at the

postsecondary level.

Legal Mandates

Secondary education. At the K–12 level, students with disabilities are

guaranteed services under the mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act of 2004 (IDEA; P.L. 108-446). The IDEA requires that local education agencies

(LEAs) identify and evaluate students with potential disabilities and, if a disability is

determined, to provide them with an individualized education program (IEP). The IEP

document must include “a statement of the program modifications … that will be

provided to enable the child” to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals

(§ 300.320(a)(B)(4)(i)). In addition, the IEP must contain “a statement of any individual

appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic achievement

and functional performance of the child on State and districtwide assessments” (§

300.320(a)(B)(6)(i)). In high school, the use of accommodations and supports is

widespread for students with disabilities (McLaughlin, 2012). Typically, a team of

educators and the student’s parents are responsible for making decisions related to such

accommodations, a point underscored by research indicating minimal student

involvement in and understanding of the IEP process (Martin, Portley, & Graham, 2010).

Postsecondary education. Upon a student’s graduation or exit from secondary

school, section coverage under the IDEA ends. At the postsecondary level, students with

disabilities may be eligible for civil rights protections under Subpart E of Section 504 of

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112). According to the legislation,

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 6

No qualified handicapped student shall, on the basis of handicap, be

excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be

subjected to discrimination under any academic, research, occupational

training, housing, health insurance, counseling, financial aid, physical

education, athletics, recreation, transportation, other extracurricular, or

other postsecondary education aid, benefits, or services to which this

subpart applies (§104.43(a)).

To ensure that students with disabilities have access to both the physical and instructional

environment, colleges must provide academic adjustments (Office for Civil Rights, 2007).

These are described in the legislation as “modifications to its academic requirements as

are necessary to ensure that such requirements do not discriminate or have the effect of

discriminating, on the basis of handicap, against a qualified handicapped applicant or

student” (§140.44(a)). The legislation specifically states that in regard to course

examinations and evaluation of academic achievement, colleges must use methods that

ensure that such evaluation will be based on the student’s achievement level, not the

impact of the student’s disability and “impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills”

(§104.43(c)).

A range of possible academic adjustments may be provided, including a reduced

course load and extended time on exams (Office for Civil Rights, 2007). Postsecondary

institutions must determine which accommodations will be provided on a case-by-case,

course-by-course basis to best meet the individual needs of a student (United States

Government Accountability Office, 2009). Note that although the term modifications is

used in the definition of academic adjustments, colleges and universities tend to provide

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 7

accommodations, not modifications. McLaughlin (2012) explained that both

accommodations and modifications “can be a device, practice, intervention, or procedure

provided to a student with a disability that affords equal access to instruction or

assessment” (p. 23). However, accommodations neither change the content being taught

nor reduce achievement expectations, whereas modifications do make such changes

(McLaughlin, 2012).

In addition, postsecondary institutions must provide students with educational

auxiliary aids and services. These might include note-takers, taped texts, recording

devices, and other adaptive computer equipment. Yet there are important restrictions to

these services. For example, institutions are not required to provide services of a personal

nature, including readers for studying or attendants. Likewise, services like tutoring need

not be provided for students with disabilities unless they are offered to the general student

body. If so, then the services must be made available to students with disabilities

((§140.44(d)(2); OCR, 2007).

Student Use of Accommodations and Services

Broad data exist on the types of accommodations provided for students in

postsecondary education. In the 1996–98 school years, 72% of 2- and 4-year

postsecondary institutions reported enrolling students with disabilities, including 98% of

public institutions. Of the institutions that enrolled students with disabilities, 98%

reported providing the students with at least one support service or accommodation

(Lewis & Farris, 1999). The most common was extended exam time or alternative exam

formats (reported by 88% of the institutions), while 77% provided tutors and 69%

provided readers, note-takers or scribes. Other reported accommodations and services

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 8

were registration assistance (62%), adaptive equipment and technology (58%), textbooks

on tape (55%), sign language interpreters (45%), and course substitutions or waivers

(42%) (Lewis & Farris, 1999).

More than a decade later—during the 2008–09 academic year—88% of 2- and 4-

year institutions enrolled students with disabilities, including 99% of public institutions.

Of these institutions, 93% provided extended test time, followed by classroom note-

takers (77%), faculty-provided course notes or assignments (72%), assistance with

learning strategies and study skills (72%), alternative exam formats (71%), and adaptive

equipment and technology (70%). A critical point to consider in examining these data is

that these results represent the perspective of institutions that provided the supports, not

the proportion of students with disabilities who received them. These percentages do not

distinguish between institutions that provided accommodations for only one student with

a disability and those where most students with disabilities received supports. Moreover,

these percentages represent institutions that were aware of providing services to students

who self-identified as having a disability; however, students with disabilities may have

been receiving services directly from professors or other campus offices without going

through the disability services office (Barber, 2012).

The importance of this point was amplified in a report from the NLTS2 that

tracked the postsecondary education experiences of a nationally representative sample of

young adults with disabilities for up to 8 years after they left high school (Newman et al.,

2011). Compared with institutional data on accommodations, the NLTS2 data provide a

picture of student- reported accommodation use. All the students in the sample had

received special education services in high school, and 60% had enrolled in some type of

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 9

postsecondary school. However, only 28% had disclosed their disability to their college.

Another large-scale study of student accommodation use by Mamiseishvili and

Koch (2011) examined data from the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal

Study to determine the factors related to first-to-second-year persistence of college

students with disabilities. Key findings indicated that course substitutions, readers, and

note-takers or scribes were significantly related to student retention. Salzer, Wick, and

Rogers (2008) presented the results of a survey of 508 current and former postsecondary

students with mental illness regarding their accommodation use in college and found that

75% reported using at least one. The most commonly reported accommodations or

informal services were individual meetings with teachers (46%), extended time to

complete assignments (44%), receiving an incomplete grade rather than an F during a

relapse (29%), and extended test time (29%).

As these studies described, some colleges provide students with disabilities

academic supports in study skills and learning strategies. These are typically considered

“enhanced or more comprehensive services” that exceed what is required by the

mandates of Section 504, but some institutions provide them (Madaus, 2006; McGuire,

2010; United States Government Accountability Office, 2009, p. 16). Troiano, Liefeld,

and Trachtenberg (2010) examined the connection between students’ use of such an

academic support program and their grade point averages and graduation rates. The

results indicated that students who regularly attended scheduled academic support

program sessions had higher GPAs; in addition, consistent attendance predicted college

graduation in 68% of the students. Conversely, students with inconsistent session

attendance had the largest concentration of GPAs below 1.5.

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 10

Rationale for the Present Study

Despite the widespread discussion about the importance of accommodations in

postsecondary education, relatively little is known about what specific accommodations

students use at the secondary level and subsequently at the postsecondary level. As noted,

statistics on the prevalence of accommodation use are reported primarily from the

institutional rather than student perspective. How the receipt of accommodations differs

between high school and postsecondary school for specific students is even less clear.

NLTS2 provides the data to fill this dearth of information because the data set allows

tracking of information on the services students with disabilities received in high school

and comparison of this with the services the students said they actually were receiving in

college.

Funded by the U.S. Department of Education in 2000 with an initial sample of

more than 11,000 students, the NLTS2 has produced the only national database on the

characteristics, experiences, and post-high school outcomes of secondary school-age

students with disabilities. NLTS2 is uniquely suited to contributing to a better

understanding of the experiences of postsecondary students with disabilities because it is

the only nationally representative database that generalizes to the full U.S. population of

such students. Only slightly more than a quarter of the postsecondary school students

with disabilities reported informing their postsecondary schools of their disability and

disability-related needs (Newman et al., 2011). Because most studies of postsecondary

students with disabilities rely on student’s self-identification, they completely overlook

the more than 70% of postsecondary students with disabilities who are under the radar.

Only by using data from NLTS2, a study that followed students with disabilities

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 11

longitudinally from high school, where their school district identified them as having a

disability, to college can the experiences of the complete population of postsecondary

students with disabilities be more fully understood.

The present paper is intended to extend the research presented by Newman et al.

(2011), based on NLTS2 data. Although that study reported data on rates of

accommodation receipt at the postsecondary level, it did not link the data for receipt of

specific types of accommodations, modifications, and supports to the student’s rate of

receipt at the secondary level, which would allow for direct comparisons between the

settings. Nor did the Newman et al. study break out rates of receipt of accommodations,

modifications, supports, and services by type of postsecondary institution. In addition, the

present analysis used a broader sample than that in the prior report. The 2011 report

included only those who had responded to the Wave 5 parent/youth interview/survey,

whereas this paper includes respondents across all NLTS2 data collection waves who

reported ever having attended a postsecondary institution. Finally, the current paper is

based on a more stringent definition of postsecondary enrollment than the 2011 report,

which is more fully described in the methods section.

Thus, the present study was designed to answer the question of the extent to

which the receipt of accommodations, modifications, supports, and services differs

between high school and postsecondary school for youth with disabilities. It also

addresses the question of the extent to which the receipt of accommodations,

modifications, and services varies across types of postsecondary schools. Specifically, the

rate of receipt of accommodations, modifications, and program services was measured at

the secondary level and compared with levels of receipt at the postsecondary level overall

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 12

and at 2-year/community colleges, 4-year colleges/universities, and postsecondary career

and technical education (CTE) schools.

Key Terms

The following terms were used for the purposes of this investigation:

accommodation, modification, and program services. Each is defined

below.

Note that these terms are used interchangeably at times in the literature and may be used

differently in various settings (e.g., K–12 v. postsecondary education).

Accommodation. As described by McLaughlin (2012, p. 23):

An accommodation can be a device, practice, intervention, or procedure

provided to a student with a disability that affords equal access to

instruction or assessment. Its purpose is to reduce or eliminate the impact

of the student’s disability so that he or she can achieve a standard. A key

point is that an accommodation does not change the content being taught,

nor does it reduce learning or achievement expectations.

Modification. Also as described by McLaughlin (2012, pp. 23-24):

A modification may also be a device, practice, intervention, or procedure.

However, in this case a teacher is changing the core content standard or

the performance expectation.

Program services. Program services are features, supports or assistance provided

for students with disabilities.

Data Sources/Methods

NLTS2 is the largest and richest dataset available that generalizes nationally to

the experiences and outcomes of youth with disabilities as they transitioned from high

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 13

school to adulthood. This study was conducted by SRI International for the U.S.

Department of Education, with data collected in five Waves, two years apart, from 2001

to 2009. The initial sample included more than 11,000 high school students ages 13

through 16 and receiving special education services on December 1, 2000. Each student’s

eligibility for special education services was determined by the school district or special

school from which the student roster was sampled. The NLTS2 two-stage sampling plan

first randomly sampled local educational agencies (LEAs) and state-supported special

schools stratified by region, district enrollment, and wealth. Students receiving special

education services were randomly selected from rosters of LEAs or special schools in

order to yield nationally representative estimates.

The present study includes NLTS2 sample members who had at least one wave of

data from a parent or youth interview after the youth had left high school, so that

measures of postsecondary enrollment were available. Results are weighted so that

findings are nationally representative of youth in the NLTS2 age range and time frame,

using a cross-wave cross-instrument weight, (Wt_AnyPYPHS) appropriate for analyzing

multiple waves of NLTS2 data (Valdes et al., 2013).

The NLTS2 database includes data collected from interviews and/or surveys of

parents and youth across five waves of data collection (conducted every other year

beginning in 2001 and ending in 2009), high school transcripts, surveys of students’ high

school teachers, and direct assessments of students’ academic achievement. For this

paper, data about postsecondary school enrollment and accommodations, modifications,

and services received from postsecondary schools were constructed based on data from

parents and/or youth’s responses to survey items in parent and youth interview/surveys

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 14

conducted in Waves 2 (2003) through 5 (2009). In identifying the sample for this paper,

youth responses were given priority if parent and youth responses differed in a specific

wave. For example, if a parent in Wave 3 said that the youth had attended a 2-year

college in the past 2 years, but the youth responded s/he had not attended college, the

youth was coded as not having attended a 2-year college in that wave. This differed from

the approach used to create the postsecondary sample included in the Newman, et.al.

(2011) report, where either a parent or youth affirmative response would have been

considered as a “yes” response to postsecondary enrollment for that wave. Postsecondary

enrollment rates reported in this paper will be lower than those in Newman, et. al. (2011)

because of these differences in sample definition.

The analysis sample for this paper included approximately 3,190 postsecondary

students. Postsecondary enrollment data were collected for each of three types of

postsecondary schools: 2-year or community colleges (approximately 2,230 students), 4-

year colleges or universities (approximately 1,110 students), and CTE schools

(approximately 1,280 students). Students reported to have been enrolled in each of these

types of schools were included in the sample for that type of school. Because students

may have attended several types of postsecondary institutions, they may be included in

more than one type of postsecondary school sample; however, they are included only

once in the full postsecondary sample. Unweighted sample size numbers reported here

are rounded to the nearest 10, as required by the restricted data use agreement with the

U.S. Department of Education.

We examined 23 measures of disability-related supports received from

postsecondary and high schools, divided into four categories: accommodations,

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 15

modifications, academically-focused program or individualized services, and other

program or individualized services. Postsecondary students who reported disclosing a

disability to their postsecondary school and asking for services, accommodations, or

other help had been asked an open-ended follow-up question about the types of supports

received from the school; responses were coded based on a long list of predetermined

categories. Probe questions were asked of those who had not responded to a category of

items. For example, if a respondent had not indicated he or she had received testing

accommodations, the follow-up question was, “Have you had any accommodations in

how you take tests, like more time to take tests or a different setting to take tests?” To

create a percentage of the full postsecondary student body with disabilities, we

constructed zero-filled versions of these items, with those who had not disclosed a

disability or requested accommodations included as a no.

Information about the receipt of accommodations, modifications, and services by

postsecondary students when they were in high school came primarily from the high

school program surveys conducted in 2002 and 2004. These surveys were completed by

the staff member most knowledgeable about the student’s high school experiences.

Respondents to the high school program survey were provided with a list of

accommodations, modifications, and academic services and asked to indicate which the

student received as part of his or her IEP or 504 plan. The high school program survey

did not include items about other-than-academic program or individualized services. That

information was collected from the parent interview/surveys conducted when

postsecondary students included in this paper were in high school. We limited these

responses to the subset of respondents who also had school program survey data.

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 16

Data Analysis

Analyses involved descriptive statistics (e.g., percentages and means) and

bivariate relationships (cross tabulations), excluding cases with missing values. A

standard error is presented for each mean and percentage. All statistics were weighted to

be representative of a larger population of postsecondary students with disabilities; no

imputation of missing values was conducted. Comparisons between students in the

different types of postsecondary schools were conducted using a two-sample t test with

unequal variances. Comparisons between postsecondary students receiving

accommodations, modifications, services at two time points (when they were in high

school and when they were in postsecondary school) were conducted using paired t tests.

Paired t test comparisons excluded cases with missing values at either time point. In

addition, responses for those missing one of the time-point values were compared with

those who had both values in a two-sample t test with unequal variances. Respondents

who were missing one time-point value did not differ significantly in their rate of receipt

of accommodations, modifications, or services from those who did not, with two

exceptions. Postsecondary students with high school data were more likely to receive

more time on tests and learning strategies/study skills assistance than those without (23%

vs. 15%; p < .05, and 2.4% vs. 0.5%).

Results

Postsecondary Attendance

In total, 51% of young adults with disabilities ever attended a postsecondary

school within 8 years of leaving high school. The largest number (36%) attended a 2-year

institution, followed by 23% who attended a CTE school, and 15% who attended a 4-year

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 17

institution. As noted, because students could attend multiple types of institutions, they

may be included in more than one type of postsecondary school sample.

Disability Type

Students with learning disabilities constituted more than two-thirds (69%) of the

population of students with disabilities in postsecondary schools. Those in four other

disability categories accounted for approximately 25% of that population: students with

emotional disturbances, 9%; intellectual disabilities, 6%; other health impairments (the

federal disability category that includes students with attention deficit/hyperactivity

disorder), 5%; and speech/language impairments, 5%. Students in the seven remaining

federal disability categories represented less than 6% of those who attended a

postsecondary school. Thirty-six percent of postsecondary students with disabilities were

reported to have ADD/ADHD in addition to their other disability. This breakdown was

consistent across types of postsecondary institutions, with students with learning

disabilities representing 69% at both 2- and 4-year colleges and 67% at CTE schools,

followed by students with emotional disturbance (10% at 2-year colleges, 7% at 4-year

colleges, and 12% at CTE schools.

Demographic Characteristics

English was the primary language of 91% of the students with disabilities who

attended postsecondary school. Students with disabilities at postsecondary schools were

more likely to be male than female (62% vs. 38%, p < .001), reflecting the

disproportionate number of males (two-thirds; Wagner et al., 2003) in the population of

youth with disabilities. In terms of race/ethnicity, white students accounted for 66% of

the population of students with disabilities who had ever attended any type of

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 18

postsecondary school, compared with 18% who were African American (p < .001) and

14% who were Hispanic (p < .001). Students with disabilities from families with parental

incomes of more than $50,000 made up 43% of those with disabilities ever attending

postsecondary school, and approximately 29% were from households with incomes of

$25,000 or less. These patterns in demographic differences were apparent across types of

postsecondary schools, with white males from higher SES families more likely to attend

all types.

Self-Disclosure

Although 100% of the students received special education services in secondary

school, only 35% informed a postsecondary school of their disability. Half (50%)

reported that they did not consider themselves to have a disability, whereas 14%

indicated that they considered themselves to have a disability but chose not to disclose

this to their postsecondary school. Findings were similar across types of postsecondary

institutions, with rates of disclosure ranging from 28% at CTE schools to 33% at 2- and

4-year colleges. Approximately 56% at 2- and 4-year colleges and 54% at CTE schools

reported that they did not consider themselves as having a disability and an additional

12% at 2-year and 10% at 4-year colleges, and 19% at CTE schools identified as an

individual with a disability, but had opted not to disclose that disability to their

postsecondary

school.

Receipt of Disability Accommodations or Modifications

When they were in high school, 98% of the postsecondary students in the study

received at least one type of accommodation, modification, or service because of a

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 19

disability (Table 1). In contrast, only 24% did at the postsecondary level—a 71

percentage point decrease (p < .001). At the time they were surveyed, 6% of

postsecondary students reported requesting, but not yet receiving some type of disability-

related support from their institution. Receipt of disability-related accommodations,

modifications, and services ranged from 16% at CTE schools to 22% at 4-year colleges

and 25% at 2-year or community colleges.

Specific types of disability-related accommodations, modifications, and services

reported as being received are based on the definitions provided earlier and presented

below.

Accommodations. When postsecondary students with disabilities were in high

school, more than 95% received at least one accommodation from their school. In

contrast, only 23% (p < .001) received any accommodations from their postsecondary

school. This pattern of lower rates of accommodation receipt at the postsecondary level

was apparent across types of schools—23% at 2-year institutions, 22% at 4-year

institutions, and 15% at CTE schools—as well as across types of accommodations. The

most frequently received type at both the secondary and postsecondary levels was testing

accommodations, including extended time and different settings for test taking. Almost

88% received this accommodation support in high school, compared with 21% (p < .001)

in postsecondary school overall; (21% at 2-year colleges; 20% at 4-year colleges; 12% at

CTE schools). Additional time to complete assignments was the second most frequently

received accommodation (72% in high school vs. 6% in postsecondary school, p < .001;

5% at 2-year colleges and CTE schools; 3% at 4-year colleges), followed by a reader for

tests or assignments (47% in high school vs. 4% in postsecondary school, p < .001; 4% at

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 20

2-year colleges; 2% at 4-year colleges; 3% at CTE schools), use of a calculator for

activities not allowed other students (33% vs. 6%, p < .001; 5% at 2-year colleges; 4% at

both 4-year colleges and CTE schools), disability-related computer use (23% vs. 4%, p

< .001; 3% at 2-year colleges; 4% at 4-year colleges; 1% at CTE schools), and books on

tape (15% vs. 2%, p < .001; 2% at both 2-year and 4-year colleges; 1% at CTE

schools).

Rates of accommodation receipt did not differ significantly by type of postsecondary

school.

Modifications. Results indicated that while 59% of postsecondary students with

disabilities had received at least one modification at the secondary level, only 4% (p

< .001) did so in postsecondary school. This pattern was evident across types of

modifications, including modified or alternative tests (37% in high school vs. 1% in

postsecondary school, p < .001; 1% at 2-year colleges; .2% at 4-year colleges and CTE

schools), shorter or different assignments (30% vs. 3%, p < .001; 2% at 2-year colleges;

1% at 4-year colleges; 4% at CTE schools), and modified grading standards (29% vs.

>1%, p < .001; .> 1% at each type of school.) Rates of modification receipt did not differ

significantly by type of postsecondary school.

Academically-focused services. At the high school level, 80% of the sample

were reported to have received at least one academically-focused program or

individualized service. As with other types of supports, the rate of receipt decreased

significantly at the postsecondary level, with only 12% (p < .001) of students with

disabilities who ever attended a postsecondary institution receiving any academically-

focused program or individualized service, with this rate ranging from 7% of those at 4-

year colleges, to 8% at CTE schools, to 13% at 2-year colleges. Academic services

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 21

included a support person to monitor progress and manage school workloads (68% in

high school vs. 1% in postsecondary school, p < .001; and approximately 1% at each type

of school), assistance with learning strategies (43 vs. 2%, p < .001; 2% at 2-year colleges;

<1% at 4-year colleges and CTE schools), tutoring (31% vs. 2%, p < .001; 10% at 2-year

colleges; 6% at 4-year colleges, and 7% at CTE schools), or a teacher aid or instructional

assistant (26% vs. 3%, p < .001; 3% at 2-year colleges; 1% at 4-year colleges and CTE

schools).

Other services. As was the case with academically related services, the rate of

receipt of other programs or individualized services decreased significantly from the

secondary to the postsecondary school level. Of postsecondary students with disabilities,

78% received at least one such service while in high school, whereas less than 6%

(p < .001) did in postsecondary school. The most frequently received supports in high

school considered as other services were case management (47% in high school vs. 1%, p

< .001 in postsecondary institutions; 2% at 2-year colleges; <1% at 4-year colleges and

CTE schools), mental health/behavior management (18% vs. 2%, p < .001; 1% at each

type of postsecondary school), occupational therapy or life skills training (13% vs. <1%,

p < .001; <1% at all types of postsecondary schools), social work services (11% vs.1%, p

< .001; <1% at 2- and 4-year colleges, 2% at CTE schools), medical nursing for

evaluation diagnosis (11% vs.<1%, p < .001; <1% at all types of postsecondary schools),

and transportation services (9% vs.1%, p < .001; <1% at 2-year colleges and CTE schools,

2% at 4-year colleges).

Discussion/Implications

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 22

As noted, 100% of the postsecondary students in our study had received special

education services on the basis of a disability while in high school. However, by the time

they were college age, 50% no longer considered themselves to have a disability and only

35% chose to disclose a disability to their postsecondary school. It is not clear whether

this is a result of students finding a good match between their postsecondary studies and

their strengths and therefore not feeling the implications of the disability. Nor is it clear if

this is a result of students not fully understanding the nature of their disability or the

rationale for the accommodations and supports they received in secondary school. It is

also not clear if it is because students are generally unaware of the differences in legal

rights and responsibilities between high school and postsecondary school. However, the

existing literature points to the last reason. When postsecondary students who had not

received accommodations and supports in postsecondary school were asked about their

perceptions of the need for assistance with schoolwork, approximately 50% of those in 2-

and 4-year colleges and more than 30% of those in vocational, technical, and business

schools asserted that it would have been helpful (Newman et al., 2011). Other studies

indicate that students often lack the self-advocacy skills to properly disclose their

disabilities and request accommodations and supports (Hadley, 2006); do not understand

the impact of their specific disability, accommodation needs, and legal rights (Denhart,

2008); and frequently fear a potential stigma from disclosure (Barnard-Brak & Sulak,

2010; Denhart, 2008). Independent of students’ reasoning, the results point to the

importance of fostering student self-determination and understanding of their strengths,

preferences, and needs, as well their understanding of the change in legal responsibilities

from secondary to postsecondary institutions. Additional research on student disability-

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 23

related self-perceptions would be invaluable in clarifying these questions and enhancing

student decision making related to disclosure and accommodation request.

Without disclosure, postsecondary institutions are not required to provide services

and reasonable accommodations and supports on the basis of a disability. The results

clearly and strikingly reveal that although receipt of accommodations and other supports

is common in secondary school, it is much less prevalent at the postsecondary level. For

example, 98% of the students with disabilities received some sort of accommodation,

modification, or related service in high school, but only 24% did at the college level.

Regarding accommodations specifically, 95% of students were reported to have

received these types of supports in secondary school, but only 23% did in postsecondary

school. As with disclosure, this may be because some students found a good fit and did

not have a need for accommodations. Yet some students might not understand the need

for or benefit of such accommodations and might not seek them out. Even more striking

is the disparity in receipt of modifications between the secondary and postsecondary

school. Whereas 59% of all the students with disabilities in this study received at least

one modification in high school, only 4% did in postsecondary school. Moreover, this

figure fell to 2% for students with disabilities who attended 4-year institutions.

Recommendations for Practice

The data related to self-disclosure and accommodation use have important

implications for those assisting students with disabilities in the transition to

postsecondary education. High school transition-planning teams, including parents and

students, need to be aware that students will be required to self-disclose their disability to

the proper postsecondary contact in order to receive accommodations and services. They

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 24

should also be aware that although this is the student’s responsibility, it is also his or her

right to make a decision in this regard. The decision must be weighed carefully with

knowledge of the disability and its accompanying strengths and weaknesses, as well as

with knowledge of the implications of not disclosing. As noted, without disclosure, there

is no responsibility for the institution to provide accommodations and services.

In addition, secondary planning teams and parents must understand that although

accommodations are available based on specific disability need, their use is far more

limited at the college level. Thus, the use of accommodations at the secondary level

should be carefully examined and the student should be involved in discussions related to

why each is needed, how it is used, and what benefit it provides.

It is also imperative that secondary planning teams and parents understand that

modifications, including modified exams, shorter assignments, and modified grading

standards, are unlikely to be available at all at the college level. Despite the short-term

benefit of such modifications at the secondary level, special education teams must also

take a long-term perspective that promotes the use of learning strategies and self-

awareness over modifications.

The need for secondary school programs to foster student growth in self-

monitoring and learning skills also was illustrated by the findings on the receipt of

academically focused programs or services. At the secondary level, 68% of students with

disabilities received the support of a staff member monitoring progress and workload,

however only 43% received support in learning strategies and study skills. These rates

fell to less than 2% for both areas at the postsecondary level. Clearly, it becomes vital for

students to learn these skills during secondary school while such supports are available

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 25

and before postsecondary attendance when they are likely to need to manage these tasks

independently.

At the postsecondary level, it is essential that schools be aware of the almost two-

thirds of students with disabilities on their campuses who have chosen not to disclose

their disability. This speaks to the importance of colleges evaluating the policies and

procedures they use to make disability services and information about accessing supports

more widely available to the broader student population. It also highlights the importance

of colleges considering universal design principals in developing curriculum (Hall,

Meyer, & Rose, 2012).

Limitations

Information about receipt of accommodations, modifications, and supports was

provided by different respondents at the high school and postsecondary school levels and

in both cases could not be independently verified. At the high school level, school staff

provided information about receipt, whereas postsecondary rates of receipt were based on

parent and postsecondary student self-report. Thus, postsecondary rates may be

underreported because parents and youth may be less aware of the types of postsecondary

supports received. In addition, these findings do not report the frequency or extent of

receipt of each type of accommodation, modification, and support at the high school or

postsecondary level because they were not measured in NLTS2.

Areas for Future Research

Additional research on student disability-related self-perceptions would be

invaluable in clarifying these issues and enhancing student decision making related to

disclosure and accommodation request. These findings indicate the need for more

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 26

research related to the factors that drive who receives supports, who discloses a disability,

and the impact of receipt of these supports on school completion and persistence. Given

the importance of completing college on employment and earnings and given current data

showing that students with disabilities are less likely to complete postsecondary

education than their general population peers, it is imperative to understand the link

between accommodations, supports, and help with schoolwork and postsecondary

education outcomes for students with disabilities.

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 27

References

Barber, P. (2012). College students with disabilities: What factors influence successful

degree completion? A case study (Disability and Work Research Report). New

Brunswick, NJ: John. J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development.

Barnard-Brak, L. & Sulak, T. N. (2010). Online versus face to face accommodations

among college students with disabilities. American Journal of Distance Education,

24, 81-91. doi: 10.1080/08923641003604251

Denhart, H. (2008). Deconstructing barriers: Perceptions of students labeled with

learning disabilities in higher education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41,

493-497. doi: 10.1177/0022219408321151

Hadley, W. M. (2006). L.D. students’ access to higher education: Self-advocacy and

support. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 10-16.

Hall, T., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (2012). Universal Design for Learning in the classroom.

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lewis, L. & Farris, E. (1999). An institutional perspective on students with disabilities in

postsecondary education (NCES 1999–046). U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Madaus, J. W. (2006). Navigating the college transition maze: A guide for students with

learning disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 37, 32-37.

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 28

Mamiseishvili, K. & Koch, L. C. (2011 ). First-to-second-year persistence of students

with disabilities in postsecondary institutions in the United States. Rehabilitation

Counseling Bulletin, 54(2), 93-105. doi: 10.1177/0034355210382580

Martin, J. E., Portley, J., & Graham, J. W. (2010). Teaching students with disabilities

self-determination skills to equalize access and increase opportunities for

postsecondary educational success. In S. F. Shaw, J. W. Madaus & L. C. Dukes

(Eds.), Preparing students with disabilities for college success: A practical guide

to transition planning. Baltimore, MD:

Brookes.

McGuire, J. M. (2010). Considerations for the transition to college. In S. F. Shaw, J. W.

Madaus & L. C. Dukes (Eds.), Preparing students with disabilities for college

success: A practical guide to transition planning (pp. 7-35). Baltimore, MD:

Brookes.

McLaughlin, M. J. (2012). Access for all: Six principles for principals to consider in

implementing CCSS for students with disabilities. Principal. Retrieved from

http://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/McLaughlin_2012

Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., et al. (2011).

The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years

after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2

(NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Office for Civil Rights. (2007). Transition of students with disabilities to postsecondary

education: A guide for high school educators. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Education. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/300/297433

http://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/McLaughlin_2012

http://www.gao.gov/assets/300/297433

Running head: ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 29

Ofiesh, N. S. (2007). Math, science, and foreign language: Evidence-based

accommodation decision making at the postsecondary level. Learning Disabilities

Research & Practice, 22(4), 237-245.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29, U.S.C. § 701 (1973).

Salzer, M. S., Wick, L. C., & Rogers, J. A. (2008). Familiarity with and use of

accommodations and supports among postsecondary students with mental illness.

Psychiatric Services, 59(4), 370-375.

Troiano, P. F., Liefeld, J. A., & Trachtenberg, J. V. (2010). Academic support and

college success for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of

College Reading and Learning, 40(2), 35-44.

United States Government Accountability Office. (2009). Higher education and

disability: Education needs a coordinated approach to improve its assistance to

schools in supporting students (GAO-10-33). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved

from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/dl033

Valdes, K., Godard, P., Williamson, C., J., V. C., McCracken, M., & Jones, R. (2013).

National Longitudinal Transition Study-2(NLTS2) Waves 1, 2, 3, 4 & % data

documentation and dictionary. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M., Marder, C., Levine, P., Cameto, R., Cadwallader, T. W., Blackorby, J., et al.

(2003). The individual and household characteristics of youth with disabilities. A

report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park,

CA: SRI International. Retrieved from

http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2003_08/index.html

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/dl033

http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2003_08/index.html

ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 30

Table 1

Receipt of Disability-Related Accommodations, Modifications, or Services, by School Type

Receipt of at least

one:

High school

Across

postsecondary

school types

Percentage-

point

differencea

2-year college 4-year college CTE school

% SE % SE % SE % SE % SE

Accommodation,

modification, or

service 97.7 0.80 24.4 3.23 -70.6*** 24.7 4.14 22.4 4.88 15.9 3.85

Accommodation 95.4 1.02 22.7 3.28 -70.6*** 22.8 4.18 21.5 4.97 15.1 3.96

Modification 59.1 3.67 3.5 0.86 -56.7*** 2.4 0.95 1.5 0.63 3.7 1.78

Academically-

focused service 79.6 2.35 12.4 2.61 66.5*** 13.3 3.18 6.8 3.09 8.0 3.07

Other service 78.4 3.05 5.7 1.69 -71.1*** 5.5 2.06 4.6 1.40 5.1 2.89

Unweighted N 2,230 2,810 1,940 1,000 1,060

ACCOMMODATION RECEIPT 31

Note. Unweighted sample size numbers reported here are rounded to the nearest 10 as required by the restricted data use agreement with the U.S. Department of

Education. CTE= career and technical education.

aPercentage-point comparisons (difference and level of significance) are reported for the subset of postsecondary respondents who also had high school data.

Postsecondary respondents who had high school data did not differ significantly in their rate of receipt of other program or individualized services from those

who did not.

***p < .001.