Review the elements of the Coherence Framework in Chapter 5 of the Fullan and Quinn text. Reflect on how the identified elements support whole system change.

Review the example of Cochrane Collegiate Academy from Chapter 4 of the Fullan and Quinn text and consider how they successfully implemented the elements of the Coherence Framework to turn their underperforming school around.

Review Fullan’s article “Leadership from the Middle,” reflecting on the organization’s ability to implement change at the local and state level.

By Day 7 of Week 7

Part 4: Coherence

Write a 2- to 3-page paper that addresses each element of the four components from Fullan’s Coherence Framework, including the following:

• 1. Provide an explanation of a clear and shared focus of direction for the identified program.
• 2. Describe how you cultivate collaborative cultures that set the pathway to change.
• 3. Explain how this process will deepen the learning of the staff, as well as positively impact student learning.
• 4. Describe how ongoing data will be collected and analyzed to further secure accountability,
• 5.in your final 2 paragraphs, summarize your thought regarding the process of this Project: collecting data, researching evaluation models, collaborating with others to analyze data, creating an action plan based on program needs, and planning for staff buy-in to the program changes.
• Step Explanation and headlines for APA
• FOLLOW my project about a transition Program CIRCLES for the student with disabilities post-secondary transition

Please follow the files I downloaded

Pre-Post Interagency Collaboration Survey

Using the scale provided, please indicate the extent to which you currently interact with each agency.

Five Levels of Collaboration and Their Characteristics

No interaction (0)

· Not aware of organization

· No interaction that I know of

Networking (1)

· Aware of organization

· Loosely defined roles

· Little communication

· All decisions are made independently

Cooperation (2)

· Provide information to each other

· Somewhat defined roles

· Formal communication

· All decisions are made independently

Coordination (3)

· Share information and resources

· Defined roles

· Frequent communication

· Some shared decision making

Coalition (4)

· Share ideas

· Share resources

· Frequent and prioritized communication

· All members have a vote in decision making

Collaboration (5)

· Members belong to one system

· Frequent communication is characterized by mutual trust

· Consensus is reached on all decisions

1) List your community agencies and organizations (examples provided for starting point)

My organization

Not sure

No interaction

1

Networking

2

Cooperating

3

Coordinating

4

Coalition

5

Collaboration

Arc

Autism Speaks (Autism Society)

Chamber of Commerce

Community College

Community Action Programs

County Health Department

Department of Health and Human Services

Employment Security Office

Habilitation Agencies

JobLink

Transportation agencies

School District

School Board

Social Security Office

Related Services Agencies

University Extension Office

Vocational Rehabilitation

CIRCLES:An Implementation Guide

Tiana Povenmire-Kirk, Ph. D.

Karen M. Diegelmann, Ph.D.

David W. Test, Ph.D.

Claudia Flowers, Ph.D.

Nellie Aspel, Ph.D.

Jane M. Everson, Ph. D.

Disclaimer: This document was produced under U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences Grant No. R324A110018 awarded do Dr. David W. Test and Dr. Claudia Flowers at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Table of Contents

A Note from the Authors………………………………………………………………..

3

Why CIRCLES? …………………………………………………………………………
Current Model……………………………………………………………………..

5
7

CIRCLES in a Nutshell………………………………………………………………….
Community Level Team…………………………………………………………..
School Level Team………………………………………………………………..
IEP Team………………………………………………………………………….
Teams vs. Committees…………………………………………………………….

7
8
8
9
10

CIRCLES In Action……………………………………………………………………..
District Leadership Team………………………………………………………….
Community Level Team…………………………………………………………..

12
12
12

Making CIRCLES Work for You……………………………………………………….
Convening and Training the Community Level Team……………………………
Training Your Teachers……………………………………………………………
Convening and Training the School Level Team…………………………………
Making the Most of Your Student Level Team……………………………………

17
17
20
22
26

Evaluating CIRCLES-How can you tell it’s working? …………………………………
Measuring Self-Determination…………………………………………………….
Measuring IEP Participation..……………………………………………………..
Measuring Student-Agency Involvement…………………………………………
Measuring Interagency Collaboration…………………………………………….

27
28
28
29
29

CIRCLES for Diverse Students and Families……………………………………………
Strengths-Based Approach…………………………………………………………
Promote Self-Determination………………………………………………………
Increase Family Involvement………………………………………………………
Enhance Social Capital and Develop Community Networks of Support…………

30
30
31
31
32

References

……………………………………………………………………………….

34

Appendices Table of Contents…………………………………………………………..

37

A Note from the Authors

Thank you for your interest in transition planning using the CIRCLES model. We’re glad you’ve chosen to join us. I want to talk to you for a moment about road trips. As we, as a group, climb the steps to our tour bus, many of us, caught up in the excitement of the moment, may realize that our travel bag may be lacking or stuffed with inappropriate items. Others, who are better planners, more organized, or less swept up in the moment may ask, prior to arriving at the bus stop, where we are going. These “planners” will then check the weather for the duration of our stay. Still others joining us on our road trip will want to know things like where we will stop, how often, and what activities we will partake in on our journey. Do we need black tie attire? Will we be hiking? Biking? Swimming? Those of us who were so excited about the road trip that we forgot to think about the destination may realize we packed poorly for a hiking trip to the mountains, that our Prada high heels and DKNY cocktail dress may leave us ill-equipped for that journey. It helps to stop and think, not only about where we want to end up, but about the best ways to get there and the tools we will need along the way.

Transition is like a road trip; the transition plan is like the GPS map of how to get there. We will have stops along the way, and may change direction or take detours, like a seventy-five-mile trek to see the world’s largest ball of yarn. When you get back on the road, you would be wise to check in and be sure you are still going to the same place. A bad transition plan is as useless as a GPS with outdated maps or one that is mis-calibrated and tells you are in the middle of a field instead of on I-

10.

A good transition plan, on the other hand, can make your journey feel like a five-star vacation arranged by a seasoned group of travel agents and managed by a highly skilled personal assistant. The CIRCLES model for transition planning is that travel agent and personal assistant. It ensures that our students know their destination, understand how to pack and what they need for their journey, and where to stop along the way. So hang on, get ready, and join us for this road trip, we’re glad you’re here.

Why CIRCLES?

As you know, special education services are intended to provide individualized support to students with disabilities as they work their way through the education system; one way to measure the success of these services is by evaluating post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. Currently, post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities are measured by level of engagement in three areas: (a) postsecondary education or training, (b) employment, and (c) if appropriate independent living (IDEA, 2004). Helping students transition from the special education system to the adult world of work, postsecondary education, and independent living is critical to post-school success for youth with disabilities.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) requires a written component outlining services and activities for transitioning youth with disabilities from high school to adult life be included in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) no later than the student’s 16th birthday. IDEA 2004 defines transition as a coordinated set of activities that facilitate the child’s movement from high school to adult life and address areas of: training, education, employment, community integration, adult services, and independent living. IDEA 2004 further dictates the transition planning process should be based on the child’s individual strengths and needs, and should include representatives from any agency likely to provide adult services to the student during or after transitioning out of school. But let’s face it, if you’re reading this book, then you know all of that. What you want to know is how to do this well.

As we discussed in the Note from the Authors, each student’s post-school goals serve as a road map – we need to know where the student is going if we are going to plan how to help them get there. Consequently, post-school goals should be written prior to developing the remainder of the IEP to ensure the high school experience and transition services can support both the educational goals and post-school goals of students with disabilities. IDEA (2004) further states schools “must invite to the IEP meeting a representative of any participating agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services” [34 CFR §300.321(b)(3)]. Inviting agencies to the IEP does not let schools off the hook if an agency fails to provide services agreed upon and included in the IEP. If a given agency fails to provide services promised, the school must “reconvene the IEP meeting and identify alternative strategies to meet the transition objectives” [34 CFR §300.324(c)(1)]. It is clear, then, that IDEA requires adult service provider involvement in planning and providing transition services, and that the school is ultimately responsible for following up and ensuring all services deemed necessary are provided.

Interagency collaboration is defined here as a process through which the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; agency representatives come together to achieve, collectively, more than they could each achieve working independently. Bruner (1991) defines collaboration as:

. . . a process to reach goals that cannot be achieved acting singly (or, at a minimum, cannot be reached as efficiently). As a process, collaboration is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The desired end is more comprehensive and appropriate services for families that improve family outcomes. (Bruner 1991, p. 6)

Interagency collaboration has been identified as an evidence-based predictor of improved education and employment outcomes for students with disabilities (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009), and is considered a substantiated transition practice (Landmark, Ju, & Zhang, 2010; Kohler, 1996). However, few models exist that support interagency collaboration. CIRCLES is a model that has experienced success in increasing interagency collaboration, improving student self-determination, and increasing student participation in IEP meetings. For those interested, a brief summary of CIRCLES outcome data is included in Appendix A.

Current Model (Or What Does Not Work)

Numerous models to provide transition planning services exist, but most fall short of accomplishing the goal of seamless service provision that truly prepares students for life after high school. Current transition planning practice in many districts involves the special education teacher contacting representatives from each agency, through email or phone calls, that might be responsible for paying for or providing transition services to their students and inviting these representatives to every IEP meeting where their services might be helpful (Povenmire-Kirk, et al., 20

15

). Due to the large caseloads and catchment areas of many such agencies, representatives are seldom able to attend, and if they are, they rarely stay for the entire IEP meeting, which can run 2 – 3 hours and have very little to do with transition planning. In practice, a single direct service provider could be asked to attend hundreds of IEP meetings a year – an expectation that is simply not humanly possible to fulfill. Furthermore, special education teachers are often unaware of all the adult service providers available to support their students (Povenmire-Kirk, et al, 2015).

CIRCLES in a Nutshell

The CIRCLES model involves three levels of interagency collaboration including a Community Level Team, a School Level Team, and an IEP Team. These teams work together to address transition planning needs of students with disabilities to improve both their in-school and post-school outcomes (Aspel, Bettis, Quinn, Test, & Wood, 1999; Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2015). The target population for CIRCLES includes students with disabilities who need support from multiple adult service providers to experience successful post-school outcomes. In summary, CIRCLES allows agencies to plan, provide, and facilitate support services directly to students and families who need involvement from multiple adult service providers.

Community Level Team

The Community Level Team (CLT) is comprised of administrators and supervisors of local agencies who may be able to provide transition services such as Vocational Rehabilitation, Department of Social Services, Health Department, The Arc, Easter Seals, Autism Society, transportation, residential service providers, post-secondary education institutions, recreation providers, and any other local service providers. District level staff (e.g., transition coordinator, compliance specialist, etc.) organize and convene the CLT to address larger issues of access to services within the community. The CLT meets two to four times per year to work on issues at the policy level; they identify gaps and overlaps in services, and work together to change policy and practice to better serve students and adults with disabilities. One key role of CLT members is to appoint a direct service representative from their agency to serve on the School Level Team (SLT), because administrative-level buy-in is vital to success of the process.

School Level Team

The School Level Team (SLT) is what makes CIRCLES different than other models that utilize interagency transition teams. Interagency community-level transition teams exist in many communities, but CIRCLES, via the SLT, brings adult agency representatives to meet directly with students and their families. The SLT is comprised of direct service providers (e.g., case managers, counselors, care coordinators, etc.) from each agency represented on the CLT. In other words, those professionals whom special educators might traditionally invite to attend IEP meetings. Because of the size of their caseload and/or catchment area, these representatives are often unable to attend IEP meetings for every student in need. In the CIRCLES model, district staff responsible for convening CIRCLES meetings invite them to attend one full-day meeting a month during the school year, in which the team sees a student every 30 to 4

5

minutes

, and can see up to 10 students a day. Students create three to eight minute presentations using technology (e.g., PowerPoint, Voki, Wobook, GoAnimate) to describe their strengths, areas of need, and post-school goals. For the remaining time allotted (20 –

40 minutes

per student), members of the SLT talk with the student, his or her family, special educators, and one another to determine the best way to deliver transition services to each student based on their strengths, needs, and goals. In addition to giving the student, parent, and special educators a personal contact to associate with each agency, the SLT format also allows time for appointments to be made and questions to be answered by agency members. In addition, families can discuss any needs they may have as a whole (e.g., poverty, homelessness, transportation, food insecurity, guardianship assistance, etc.). Agencies work with one another and the student and family to create the most comprehensive plan to meet each student’s specific needs. After each student is seen, agency members prepare to hear the next student presentation during a 5-10 minute break, and then start the process over for each new student. SLTs typically see between six and 10 students per meeting day. To ensure follow-through of the service plans developed at these meetings, and because the SLT’s main purpose is to develop transition activities and services for the student with a disability, the minutes of each SLT meeting are distributed to every member of the SLT, the IEP team via the special education teacher, the student, and his or her parents.

IEP Team

The IEP team is the final level in the CIRCLES multi-level approach. After the SLT meeting, special education teachers take the minutes of the SLT meeting and any decisions made back to the IEP meeting and write the transition component based on the services agreed upon at the SLT. This process enables the IEP team to write the other components of the IEP with the end goals of the student in mind. Because the district-level school staff are responsible for convening the CLT and SLT meetings, the time special education teachers typically spend inviting folks to IEP meetings is freed up for preparing students for SLT and IEP meetings. Student assessments and interviews that go into developing their presentations to the SLT are all part of what should be standard operating procedures for preparing for the transition component of any IEP meeting. The only activity that may not be part of standard procedures is the training of the technology tools to help students present. However, many districts require students to present a portfolio their senior year, so the students’ SLT presentations can be used as both a practice activity and a starting point for this larger portfolio presentation. In some schools, teachers use technology their students utilize as part of CIRCLES as “technology instruction” needed to meet criteria associated with graduation. School and district personnel implement CIRCLES within their schools, choosing which students will participate in the process. The demographics of the students brought to CIRCLES represent students with the greatest need for multiple agency involvement. Appendix B illustrates the relationships of these teams to one another, the student, and the community.

A Word About Teams vs. Committees

You will notice that we use the term “Team” to describe each level of collaboration; this language choice is not made lightly. Research on interagency collaboration and teaming is clear, people are more productive when they work toward a common goal, and, consequently, the term Team is an important word to use. It expresses, very simply, the goals of the group. Work groups can be called lots of things and they tend to function a lot like what they’re named. So, if you call a work group a “committee,” they will discuss things from multiple perspectives and with different agendas in mind. Often, items will lay on the table experiencing a death by committee. Some committees work well, and many of you may have been involved in one that has been successful, but replicating that type of group genius is challenging, at best. However, when we call a work group a Team, members tend to have an expectation that this is a team that will fight and win together for their shared goals. They think about their favorite professional sports teams or the United States Olympic teams, and they realize that, although individuals may experience greatness as part of the process, what matters at the end of the day is how the entire team did, how they worked together, how they were able to prioritize their common goals and envision the common setbacks they faced in their endeavor. Because the members of each Team in CIRCLES are often employed by different entities and, by nature, may have different agendas for their entities with regards to people with disabilities, we purposefully use the term Team to describe what happens at the community level and the school level. Language is important, it sets up expectations, but word choice, alone, is not enough. So, as we use the term Team, we also talk about why we call ourselves a Team and not a committee or a workgroup, and we develop together, as a team, a statement of values, mission, and vision (Everson & Guillory, 2002). We recommend that these statements be developed as part of the first meeting of each level of Team, and that they reflect the work of everyone on the Team. Further, we suggest that these statements be printed, either on a poster board or plaque, or at the beginning of the agenda for every meeting of this Team, to remind members of the shared goals and to offer a litmus test of sorts in the case of disagreements. Members in conflict can refer themselves and their Teammates to the Values, Mission, and Vision statements and ask if the matter at hand is in keeping with these statements. The values, mission and vision statements are projected or hung up or printed out or put on the top of the agenda for every meeting that comes next. Once agreed upon, they become the governing rules, so if we are off-task or off-topic we can point to those values, mission and vision statements and ask ourselves, “are we in keeping with what we’re here to do?” A interagency Teaming Guide can be found in Appendix F or visit

http://circles.uncc.edu/sites/circles.uncc.edu/files/media/Interagency-Teaming-Guide

CIRCLES in Action

The District Leadership Team

We have found CIRCLES works best when there is a Leadership Team within the district. Several of our more successful districts at the beginning faced struggles when a life-changing event occurred to the one person in the district who had the leadership reigns. We have found that teams of two to three people can shoulder the entire load of the management work related to CIRCLES together, and keep it going in the event that one of them has to step out for a while. That said, the CIRCLES District Leadership Team (DLT) does most of the work related to convening and scheduling the CLT and SLT meetings for CIRCLES. We will explain this work in more detail in the sections that follow.

Community Level Team (CLT)

In order to ensure the longevity of CIRCLES, administrator buy-in is a must. This can be accomplished several different ways. In some of our CIRCLES districts, we recruited principals first, and then transition specialists, and finally, teachers. Other districts had teachers who heard about CIRCLES who contacted us, and who sold it up the chain of command until their principals had bought in. Whether you are an administrator in a school district, a teacher, transition specialist, paraprofessional, or an adult service provider, there is a place to start and a way to proceed to plant CIRCLES in your district and make it grow. The one thing that will always remain constant is this: you need administrator support as much as you need teacher buy in to accomplish CIRCLES. Each school district has its own culture and its own unwritten rules. No matter where you start, bring your system and building administrators in on the conversations early. Some administrators are hands-off, they let you pretty much run your own show, unless it requires a huge budget item. Others want to be more involved, they want updates, they attend CIRCLES team meetings, etc. The bottom line is that there is no wrong way to start CIRCLES, as long as everyone involved knows what is going on.

Luckily, CIRCLES has a built-in Team level for administrators to be involved – the Community Level Team (CLT). As we described above, the CLT is comprised of administrator level members of adult service provider agencies and school district personnel. For many of our districts, the principal sat on this Team, other districts included the special education director. One small, rural district’s CLT was convened and run by the district superintendent.

When starting the CLT, the first step is identifying potential members. Here is where we ask you to imagine you have a magic wand. Now, mind you, it’s not very magic, just a little bit magic. It’s magic enough that if you wave it, everyone who you could ever hope to have provide services to your students will show up to a meeting. So, who will you invite with your magic wand? We ask you to think first of agencies and entities, then think more specifically within those agencies in terms of who should serve on which team level. Typically, the CLT is comprised of administrators and the SLT is comprised of direct service providers, but this varies widely across districts. Smaller, more rural districts may have individuals who wear many hats, and there may be overlap between the members of the CLT and the members of the SLT. In larger, more urban districts, the members of the CLT may be many pay grades removed from direct service provision. The thing about CIRCLES is that it will work within whatever structure, size, and culture your district already has in place.

Just as administrator buy-in is important for CIRCLES to be successful in the schools, agency administrator buy-in is important for CIRCLES to be successful outside of school. Instead of sending direct service providers back to their respective agencies and asking them to describe and define CIRCLES to their supervisors, we bring the administrator to the CLT meeting. Although administrator buy-in is a critical step in forming CIRCLES within your schools, it is not the only purpose of the CLT. The CLT, by nature of its membership, is a powerful force for braiding together of resources, identifying gaps and overlap, and streamlining the processes available in a given district for transitioning to better outcomes for people with disabilities. CIRCLES allows us, through the CLT, to train to our needs, reach who we can, and close the gap. Below, we discuss three examples of group genius at the level of the CLT in CIRCLES.

Train what we need. As you will see in our sample agendas below, we ask the CLT as early as the second meeting to identify barriers to providing services to this population. One of our districts, “Small-town County Schools,” identified that, within their district, there were no training programs for the jobs that were widely available to people with disabilities, and that the training programs within their district were for jobs that were available outside of the district. This was a small, rural town that relied heavily on tourism in the outdoors arena. The CLT identified the jobs available as falling into one of five categories: office support, custodial or hospitality work, landscape work, child care, and kitchen work. The agencies represented on the CLT included the local community college, who partnered with other CLT members to develop and implement the CIRCLES courses at the community college. These courses were approved paths to certification for the areas identified above. Within less than a year of implementing CIRCLES, the community college opened the first three pathways as fields of study, not only to students who went through CIRCLES, but to members of the community, as well. By the end of the second year, they opened the other two certification pathways. They had 21 graduates their first year, each working in the county by graduation.

Reach who we can’t. Another district, Middle Suburban Schools, met as a CLT and identified that one of the biggest barriers facing their ability to serve youth with disabilities was that of waiting lists for services. Many services in this district are available, but have three to five year waiting lists. One of the challenges is getting parents to sign up early for services that their children don’t currently need or qualify for, but that have significant waiting lists. Adding to this challenge was the fact that many parents of children with significant disabilities are unaware of what is available within the district. To address this need, the CLT discovered that the first and often only place where parents get information about services available to their children is through their primary care providers. The CLT sprang into action and, within the first full school-year of implementation, had developed two different outreach documents. The first document was geared toward primary care physicians. It spoke to their crucial role in spreading awareness of services and gave them a list of five bullet point activities they could do in a five-minute appointment with parents of children with disabilities to help spread the word and connect families in need to resources available. The second document was a color-coded resource guide that would fit into a pocket or wallet that primary care providers (PCPs) could hand out to parents of children with disabilities and review or highlight those resources most pertinent to the situation. These two tangible steps of outreach helped not only to ensure that parents of kids with disabilities get the information they need early on, but also opened up space for relationships between the agencies on the CIRCLES CLT and SLT and the primary care clinics in the area. Those connections continued to improve, allowing PCPs to refer patients to where they already have a contact and to follow up more collaboratively.

Close the gap. “Large Rural County Schools” experienced one of the most wide-reaching positive changes due to its CLT. Every CLT meeting would review highlights and challenges from the quarter’s SLT meetings. This understanding of the direct student-level impact was very important to the CLT members, it let them know how CIRCLES was working, not based on numbers and percentages, but based on individual impact. They learned something that was as surprising to them as it was to the teachers. In their state, there were multiple high school completion pathways including NC high school diploma earned through occupational course of study and a certificate of completion, NOT a diploma. The department of education in the state was adamant that the first two were equal diplomas. Future ready required math and science credits necessary to attend college and start at 100-level courses. Occupational course contained over 300 hours of actual work experience, preparing students for lives of employment. In Large Rural County Schools, transition component had included goals for the local community college programs, especially in beautician and mechanic programs. However, at the SLT meetings, teachers were learning that the certificate-granting, credit-bearing programs were not available at many local community colleges for graduates with a high school diploma earned through occupational course of study. Through CIRCLES CLT meetings in this district, they learned all community colleges in the state must accept the high school diploma earned through occupational course of study into their programs. Students must pass a test to place into different levels of math, reading, and writing classes, and they may enroll in a remedial class to bring them up to the level they need, but they have the ability, at every community college in the state now, to enroll in certificate-granting, credit-bearing courses.

This type of group genius doesn’t just happen, it only works when everyone is working as a Team. Some groups just come together and gel well; others really struggle. Regardless of the level of natural synergy of your group, all CLT members benefit from proper CIRCLES training.

Making CIRCLES Work for You

At this point, you may be thinking “CIRCLES sounds great! But…how do I make it happen?” Funny you should ask, because we will now begin taking you through the step-by-step process for making CIRCLES a reality in your district. Hang in there, start with DLT, take it slow, and don’t be afraid to go step back to move forwards.

Convening and Training the Community Level Team

Step one. As we mentioned in the segment on Team versus committee, using the word Team is important, but doesn’t ensure your group will function like a team. You need to set down some ground rules. Before you do that, you must invite people to join your team, and before you do that, you have to generate a list of possible teammates. Do not do this alone – get some help from your friends. Consider again, the magic wand question – who would you want to have at a transition planning meeting for your students, if you could have anyone there? The local vocational rehabilitation agency usually comes to mind, but what about the YMCA, or transportation? Do you have any students who need support from pregnancy and parenting organizations? Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)? Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)? The alphabet soup doesn’t end. Write your own list, have your colleagues do the same, then sit down together and compare, generate as comprehensive a list as possible. Grab your magic wand and invite everyone on your list! It is often helpful to have whomever is on your DLT who has the highest rank send out the invitations. See Appendix C for a sample letter of invitation for agencies. Set the time and date for your meeting, give it a two-hour window. Schedule the room, and send out reminder emails one week, three days, and one day before.

Step two. Holding your first CLT can be both exciting and anxiety producing. Did you forget something? Probably. Will it be a success anyway? Most likely. Will you learn things to make it better next time? Definitely. One crucial game-day decision is to ensure that the front desk staff, wherever you hold your meeting, know about the meeting, what it may be called, and where to send agency representatives. As you convene your meeting, let everyone introduce themselves and do an ice-breaker exercise. Then give a brief overview of how CIRCLES works, what it is, who participates, and what you expect from the CLT members. Appendix C contains Sample Agendas for CLT meetings 1-

4.

Talk a bit about Teams. Ask team members share good teaming experiences they have had and what made them successful. Another idea is to use a flip chart and have team members “free call” words that describe a successful team as you write them on the paper. Then do the same “free call” exercise describing unsuccessful teams. This can prompt some great conversations. If you are not comfortable talking about it, read aloud the paragraphs from this handbook about Teams versus committees.

Steps for CLT

1.

Prepare for CLT meeting

a. Invite agency representatives to CLT meetings

b. Secure location and test technology

2.

Hold first CLT meeting

a.

Introductions

b. Ice breaker

c. CIRCLES overview

3.

Identify Values, Mission, and Vision Statements

4. Nominate direct service provider to attend SLT

5.

Schedule meeting for first year

6.

Communication

a. Email minutes to all who attended

b. Email updates (e.g., future training for SLT)

c. Reminders for next meetings

Step three. It’s time to write the values, mission, and vision statements. If you are comfortable with it, you may choose to use your district’s values, mission, and vision statements as a template or starting point. If not, you may ask CLT members for feedback. One thing we’ve found helps with this is printed agendas with items and time allotted. Using a printed agenda lets the Team know what they must complete during this time and how much to consider or discuss each item. If you set aside, say,

20 minutes

for the values, mission, vision statements, you can move forward to the next item after five or six minutes. It may seem like you will never get done with everyone’s feedback, but we want to remind you that people who work in the human services areas usually want to help others, and are more alike than you may think. We’ve never had a CLT that couldn’t complete this task in under

30 minutes

.

Step four. Ask each administrative-level member of the CLT to nominate and provide contact information for a direct service provider at their organization that should be invited to serve on the School Level Team. See Appendix C for a draft of the CLT to SLT nomination sheet. Also, ask them who else should be present at the CLT meeting, and use current contacts to contact additional personnel who should attend.

Step five. Schedule your meetings for the rest of the school year. The first year, we recommend 3-4, and recommend at least two in all subsequent years. At this time, you can leave 5-

10 minutes

for conversations about potential agenda items for next meeting. You should let the team know you want to talk about challenges and barriers and you will want them each to introduce themselves and their agency next time, because, even though you may have known one another for years and served the same clients, you may not know everything every agency offers. If there are other items people want to see discussed, add them to your notes. Thank everyone for their time and dismiss them. Now, this piece is important. After the meeting, send a summary of the minutes of the meeting to everyone who was invited,
even those who were not in attendance
. This serves several functions: it helps people remember what they did at the CIRCLES meeting, it checks for understanding among those who were there, and it reminds those who were not in attendance that this CIRCLES “meeting thing” happened and decisions were made.

Step six. Keep the forward momentum going by sending out email minutes from the last meeting you held, within a week of the meeting to remind members of the team what they agreed to and accomplished. Email updates when you have scheduled and convened the training of your SLT members, and held any SLT meetings. Send a reminder out one month, two weeks, one week, three days, and one day prior to the next CLT meeting. If you know the agenda ahead of time, send it out, as well, to the entire email list, even those who were not in attendance.

Training Your Teachers

As mentioned above, we have seen CIRCLES succeed through top-down and bottom-up efforts. At this point, you must consider whether the teachers are in the loop, and we recommend that you ascertain for yourselves the extent of their understanding. Schedule a meeting with the special education teachers at each school involved, plan for 2 hours. Our goal through CIRCLES has always been to under-promise and over-deliver. If people schedule 2 hours and we let them out early, they will be more likely to come for another meeting.

Step one. Secure a location and all necessary technology. Ensure that your time slot is not competing with other district events (this is often the most complicated part of CIRCLES). Invite teachers to come to your training (regardless of the mandatory nature of the training, send out an invitation). Prepare your handouts and training presentation PowerPoint, along with an Agenda. Appendix E has samples of each of these available to you.

Step two. Train your teachers. Follow the agenda available in Appendix C, making changes as you see fit. We have had very little push back from teachers, and it usually comes during the explanation of CIRCLES, because they see it as more work. Therefore, it is important to begin training them at this point, once the CIRCLES DLT has already convened the CLT and possibly the SLT meeting, because then they can see that the work left to them is all about the student. Show your teachers the All About Me PowerPoint template available on the CIRCLES website. You have access to many tools including the Student Dream Sheet, the Student Profile Sheet, and the All About Me PowerPoint template (Appendix D). The Web 2.0 Tools instructions can provide teachers with engaging ways to get students talking and thinking about their futures. Our website has many more resources, all free, to help students assess their skills and interests. For the SLT meeting, teachers may use whichever combinations of these tools they choose, along with anything else at their disposal, but they need only bring the student, the All About Me PowerPoint, and Student Profile Sheet to the meeting. The PowerPoint gives students needed support to present themselves to SLT members. The Student Profile Sheet gives teachers and agency members a chance to communicate specifics about the student that the student may not choose to share, such as family issues (e.g. homelessness, parent in prison, abuse, etc.), mental health challenges (e.g. stealing, depression, compulsive lying, sexual acting out, etc.), and qualifying data (e.g. some agencies can only serve specific disability categories or IQ ranges).

Steps for Training Teachers

1. Secure location and test technology

2. Training agenda

a. Overview of CIRCLES

b. How to prepare students

c. Show “All About Me” Presentations

d. Demonstrate Web 2.0 Tools

e. Demonstrate Student Profile Sheet

3. Plan SLT meeting

a. Consider which students to participate

b. Set SLT meeting schedule for year

4. Designate lead teacher for each school

Step three. Once your teachers have asked all their questions, give them structured time to consider which students they want to send to CIRCLES. Work with them to schedule the SLT dates relative to the school and district calendar. Explain that CIRCLES is not for every single student on the special education caseload, but for more complex students. If you have concerns about your district’s capacity to provide services to all students eligible, begin with the most complex students. We told teachers to consider those with the highest levels of disability, with need for involvement from multiple outside agencies, who are closest to exiting school. Start with those students, and work your way back down the severity scale, the proximity to graduation scale, and the number of agencies needed scale as the year progresses.

Step Four. Designate a point of contact with each school, a lead teacher with whom you will communicate about upcoming meetings. Often, it is helpful to send out agendas with student names to agency members (in a password protected document and after obtaining parent permission) so that they can find out if the student is already receiving services, or on a waiting list, etc. At times, you may want to invite student-specific agencies (e.g., Down Syndrome agency, foster child representative) as student needs are presented. Communicate with your lead teacher two weeks, one week, and two days prior to the SLT meeting at that site. In addition, and often concurrently, you will need to train the School Level Team Members.

Convening and Training the School Level Team (SLT)

Although we have seen several different models used, it has proven most successful to gather members of the School Level Team (SLT) together to train them on CIRCLES prior to holding the first meeting where students attend.

Step one. Working from the list generated at the CLT meeting, where you asked CLT members to nominate and/or designate an agency representative to serve on the SLT, make initial contact via email. Secure a location and set aside two hours for the first SLT meeting. Invite all agency representatives and request an RSVP to get an idea of how many will attend. Prepare and test your technology (e.g., projector, computer, PowerPoints, internet connection). Be sure to let the front office staff wherever you are holding your meeting know the meeting is going to happen, that it is called CIRCLES, and where to send attendees. We can’t say enough about how much this matters. It is frustrating to show up for a meeting you are not yet sure of at a school or district office and have no one know where it is or who is running it, or even recognize that it is, indeed, a thing happening at that building. Be sure to be clear about where to park, how to enter, etc. Send out a reminder email to everyone, even those who have not yet RSVP’d, two weeks, one week, three days, and one day before the SLT meeting. See Appendix D for Special Educator Tasks to Prepare for School Level Team Meeting, which gives a rundown of the steps the lead teacher at the school will follow for each SLT meeting.

Steps for SLT

1. Prepare for training meeting

a. Invite designated agency representatives

b. Secure location and test technology

c. Send email reminders

2. First SLT Meeting

a. Introductions

b.

Ice Breaker

c. Review Values, Mission, and Vision Statement

d.

CIRCLES Overview

e. Train SLT members

f. Discuss schedule for year one

3. Subsequent SLT meetings

a. Review student progress

b. Review Student Profile Sheets

c. Introductions to each student

d. Student presentations

4. Engage with student about available services

5. Follow-through

a. Send out meeting minutes

b. Make appointments with students

6. Use meeting minutes to plan student IEPs

Step two. Hold your first SLT meeting. Follow the sample agenda available in Appendix D, making changes as your situation warrants. Begin with introductions and an ice breaker. Present an overview of CIRCLES and the role they will play in the process. Review the

Values, Mission, Vision

developed with the CLT, and either agree to adopt it, or agree to change it for the purposes of the SLT. Train the SLT members in what CIRCLES is, and what is expected from them. Let them know the schedule for the SLT meetings for the year (developed with Teacher and District Staff input). Let them know the logistics of each meeting (i.e., how long it will be, whether they will all be at the same location or different locations, whether lunch is on your own or provided, etc.) and answer any questions they have.

Step three. For each subsequent SLT meeting, allow 15-20 minutes for members to settle in, review the Student Profile Sheets and agenda for each student presenting, and to ask questions. Ensure that you can arrange the chairs or tables in a half circle or full circle and that there is space for the student, family, and teachers to join the SLT members for discussion after student presentations. After the first SLT meeting where you see students, extend this time to 30-4

5 minutes

to review follow up from last meeting. Did students, parents, or teachers make contacts that were discussed? If not, what can we do? Once you have settled in, bring on the students! One of the most important things to do,
for every student
, is to have every single member of the SLT go around an introduce themselves. This goes a long way to put nervous students and families at ease, just knowing the names and agencies represented in the room. Each student will present, and these presentations vary from three to eight minutes in length, using the All About Me PowerPoint template.

Step four. After the student presents, invite him or her to join the SLT members at the table. At this point, there are several ways to proceed. You can have one SLT member whose agency has something to offer almost everyone (Vocational Rehabilitation, or the local Community College, perhaps?) start things off, and then members can jump in and offer services they can provide. Another alternative is to go around the room and have every member contribute something, even if their agency cannot serve this student. The latter works well for engaging all SLT members, and offering information about resources students and families may not otherwise have access to or knowledge of. One of our SLT meetings had a member from the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and his job, at most meetings, was simply to connect with the student. He might make a remark about a sports team the student supported through their clothing, or comment that this student obviously liked a certain band, judging from their “One Direction” binder. We were lucky to have him, because his conversations put students and families at ease and helped us learn more about them. Even though most of the students we teamed did not have open cases with DJJ, this team member was valuable for his ability to get them talking and to make connections. He would often follow up with resources he was aware of in the community but were not represented at the table on a given day. One of our most successful implementing districts required that every single SLT member develop an action item, even if they, themselves, could not provide services. All of the printed agendas and member produced action items were merged by the DLT and sent out after the SLT to all members, each student, family, and teachers involved. This district experienced the highest levels of follow through and some of the best outcomes across the board.

Step five. Follow-through is imperative to making CIRCLES a success in your area. This is accomplished in several ways. The biggest impact can be made when everyone is on the same page. Keeping specific notes (see meeting note templates in Appendix C) as to who is supposed to take which action for follow up for which student, and emailing these out to the team is invaluable. We recommend using the model described above, where every SLT member gets a copy of the agenda and each member generates at least one action item per student teamed. The DLT compiles these action items together per student, and then, within a week of the SLT meeting, sends out these minutes and action items to the entire SLT membership, the teachers involved, and, student specific agendas only, to each student, his or her family, and related teachers and case managers. It is also helpful to encourage SLT members, teachers, and family members to bring their calendars to the SLT meeting, which allows appointments to be made at the SLT meeting; this has proven to be the best model.

Step six. Bringing the plans laid out in the SLT to fruition is the key to success in transition through CIRCLES. Everything discussed in the SLT meeting must be brought back to the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting.

Making the Most of Your Student Level Team: The IEP

In addition to all of the goals the IEP team is already tasked with, CIRCLES operates under the assumption that members of the IEP team, mainly the student’s special education teacher and paraprofessionals will be able to help the student prepare for the SLT meeting. However, we have seen numerous models in which mentors who are not part of the usual IEP team work with students to complete and rehearse their SLT presentations. In many instances, a mentor from another area of the student’s life has obviously been working one on one with the student to prepare. The basic information required in the All About Me PowerPoint can be gleaned from anyone who can get the student talking. Although it is helpful for the special education teacher and any paraprofessionals (educational and instructional aids) who work with the student to be part of this process, we have seen technology/computer teachers work closely with CIRCLES students to prepare them for the SLT. Coaches, Junior ROTC officers, and even Scout masters have stood in the back of the room during an SLT, at the invitation of students, mouthing the words to a student’s presentation, and beaming with pride. The take away for us is that anyone who supports the student can fill this role, and then submit a finished draft to the teacher for final edits. The transition specific tasks should already be taking place preparing the student for the transition component of the IEP and can be undertaken by school counselors, graduation specialists, job coaches, special education teachers, paraprofessionals, and even skilled volunteers. The technology component typically fulfills or partially fulfills some requirement for graduation in every district with whom we have worked. It’s not rocket science; if you start with the All About Me PowerPoint (Appendix D) and you receive blank stares from the student, he or she may need more guidance, skill and interest inventories, or to work through the Student Dream Sheet (Appendix D).

After the SLT, the IEP Team has another task, and the work completed at the SLT should make the IEP Team’s work easier. As discussed in the Note from the Authors at the beginning of this book, the transition plan should serve as a road map, which means that, before we can write a good IEP for a transition-aged student, we must first have an idea of their destination. In short, the academic and occupational activities our students receive should not be random, or standardized, they should be individualized and guided by the destination set forth in the transition plan. Consequently, when beginning the IEP meeting after the SLT has been held, the post-school outcomes, transition goals, activities and plan should be written first. Only when we know the destination can we write meaningful steps to get there. This is why it is so important to share the minutes of the SLT with the IEP Team leader, so that the agreed-upon goals and activities can be written into the IEP at the start. All academic and occupational/behavioral/social goals written next should support, in some way, the end goal of the transition plan. Although this may sound like a lot of work, it is the result of many hands working toward a common goal, and our experiences have been relatively seamless. CIRCLES, if implemented with fidelity, will result in better transition plans, better IEPs, increased student involvement in IEPs, higher levels of student self-determination, and better collaboration between agencies, including the school district.

Evaluating CIRCLES – How can you tell it’s working?

As you begin implementing CIRCLES, you will want to know if it is working to change student’s perspectives (i.e., self-determination), to increase student IEP participation, to increase student-agency interaction, and to build interagency collaboration across your CLT and SLT members. Published measures as well as educator-made questionnaires for evaluating CIRCLES can be found in Appendix G or on the CIRCLES website. To evaluate the fidelity of implementation on a local level and to access its impact, checklists for CLT and SLT can be found in Appendices C and D.

Measuring Self-Determination

The American Institute of Research (AIR) Self-Determination Scales measure self-determination from different viewpoints. These Self-Determination Scales are available at no cost, at the time of this printing, and can be found on the University of Oklahoma Zarrow Center for Learning Enrichment website

http://www.ou.edu/content/education/centers-and-partnerships/zarrow/self-determination-assessment-tools.html

Links to these forms are found in Appendix G, as well. Students’ self-evaluation of self-determination can be measured before and after preparing for the SLT meeting or from year to year using the AIR Self-Determination Scale Student Form. Students with difficulty reading may have the questionnaire read to them or you may use an adapted Student Form with visual supports which was created by a member of the CIRCLES team (Appendix G). Teachers can use the Educator Form to compare student self-perspectives of self-determination with teachers’ perspective of each student. There is also a

Parent

Form which gives the parents’ assessment of the student’s level of self-determination. Questions on the different forms cover what the student knows about self-determination, how they feel about it, types of opportunities students have to use self-determination at home and at school, and if the student demonstrates self-determination at home or in school. The AIR consists of statements with five options for response ranging from Never to Always. These forms are easy to score and can be found in Appendix G.

Measuring IEP Participation

After the SLT meeting, minutes and agency representatives’ action steps will be sent to the student’s teacher and/or case manager, among others. At that point, the case manager and student develop the transition component of the IEP including transition goals and activities, along with IEP goals, based on the meeting information. Because the student is involved in the transition process and has had an opportunity to present their All About Me presentation at the SLT meeting, participation at the IEP meeting is expected to increase. To measure this, we developed the IEP Participation Measure. This form can be completed at all IEP meetings for students going through CIRCLES as well as those who are not. This measure will provide you with information on how well the student transfers the SLT training to the IEP meeting. You will have a snap shot of which students are participating in IEP meetings and the over-all number for the school. A sample IEP Participation Measure is available in Appendix D. These measures can be completed by the case manager directly after the IEP meeting and kept with the student’ IEP folder to be compared over time or the forms can be collected and recorded on an excel sheet to show level of IEP participation across the school.

Measuring Student-Agency Involvement

Another important way to evaluate how well your CIRCLES model is working is to measure how many agencies each student is engaged with before and after presenting and meeting with the SLT representatives. This determination can be accomplished by sending home a questionnaire for parents to complete before the student presents at the SLT, and again, a few months after the SLT, as it often takes a few weeks to establish follow-up contact with agencies. This questionnaire could also be sent home at the beginning of each school year and compared from one year to the next. It would also provide names of possible CLT/SLT members who were not considered previously. Seeing an increase in student-agency involvement would indicate that CIRCLES is working for your district.

Measuring Interagency Collaboration

To determine level of interagency collaboration being built through CIRCLES CLT and SLT meetings, we surveyed agency representatives to find out which agencies in their community they already worked with and to what extent. An easy way to get this information is to use a questionnaire listing the agencies you know about in your community. Ask your CLT and SLT members to complete the questionnaire before starting year one of CIRCLES and to repeat the survey each year to determine if interagency collaboration is growing in your community. It is a good idea to have your special educators and school administrator take the survey as well to increase their awareness of local supports for their students and see their collaboration with those agencies build. An Interagency Collaboration Questionnaire can be found in Appendix G.

CIRCLES for Diverse Students and Families

In a recent review of the literature on best practices for students with disabilities from racially, ethnically, linguistically diverse (RELD) backgrounds, Povenmire-Kirk and colleagues (in submission) found that four main factors have a positive impact on student outcomes. The factors that make the highest level of impact are: (a) using a strengths-based approach to transition planning; (b) promoting self-determination in culturally appropriate ways; (c) increasing family involvement; and (d) building social capital and community networks of support. CIRCLES, when used with intention and direction, can facilitate the development of each of these factors. We describe this in detail below.

Strengths-Based Approach

CIRCLES fosters a strength-based approach to transition planning for all students, and especially for those who are racially, ethnically, linguistically diverse (RELD), identified as a best practice by Leake and Black (2005). As students prepare for the SLT meeting and create their All About Me presentations, the focus is not only on areas of need, but emphasizes student strengths (e.g., personal strengths, academic strengths, previous work experiences, positive social interactions, volunteer activities) and uses these strengths to design their postsecondary goals. RELD students learn along with their peers to identify their strengths, and through preparation for presenting at the SLT, learn self-advocacy skills for talking to adults and expressing their goals.

Promote Self-Determination

Research indicates that RELD families and communities may not value the same transition planning strategies identified as essential, such as parent involvement in transition planning or student independence (Kim & Morningstar, 2005; Leake, Black, & Roberts, 2003; Povenmire-Kirk, Lindstrom, & Bullis, 2010). Often RELD students, due to cultural barriers, limited choices or resources, score lower on self-determination scales than non-RELD peers. In addition, in some instances, educators and other support personnel may hold biases and limited views of student capabilities in this area (Cartledge, Gardner, & Ford, 2008; Banks, 2014).

In the CIRCLES model, self-determination should be taught to RELD students with understanding and respect for individual cultural differences (Leake & Black, 2005; Shogren et al, 2007; Trainor et al., 2008) through skill-building in the areas of identifying strengths, setting goals, and evaluating progress towards those goals (Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1998). Preparing for the SLT meeting also gives students an opportunity to practice self-determination skills as they ponder what they want to do after high school and create the All About Me presentation (Povenmire-Kirk, et al, 2015).

Increase Family Involvement

Parent involvement in transition planning is one of the essential components of the Transition Taxonomy (Kohler, 1996) and is correlated with positive post-school outcomes (Mazzotti et al., 2015). For some RELD families, this parental involvement is limited due to language barriers, transportation and childcare constraints, and work schedules. In addition, some RELD parents may not understand their child’s disability or the rights they have under IDEA. As the DLT, you may want to consider the family needs for your students presenting at the SLT. For example, several of our districts provided childcare, with activities and snacks for small children while the parents participated in the SLT. Another district found volunteers from the local faith community to arrange transportation for parents to attend the SLT meetings. Parent advocacy groups can be invited to meet with parents to provide training on the student’s disability as well as to provide translation services.

Enhance Social Capital and Develop Community Networks of Support

The CIRCLES model of transition planning provides opportunities for RELD students and families to build their network of community supports through the relationships built with agency representatives during the SLT meetings. This social capital (Banks, 2014; Trainor, 2010) is often less common for RELD families due to lack of resources and lower socio-economic status, leaving them with fewer connections to community supports and resources. By supporting RELD families in participating in SLT meetings and becoming part of the transition planning process, they are able to increase their connections to the community and service providers (Leake & Black, 2005), benefiting not only themselves, but also bringing that information to other RELD families in their personal networks. The SLT meeting provides that link from high school to post-graduation so students will continue to benefit from these associations beyond graduation leading to more positive post-school outcomes (Kim & Morningstar, 2005).

References

Aspel, N., Bettis, G., Quinn, P., Test, D. W., & Wood, W. M. (1999). A collaborative process for planning transition services for all students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 22, 21-42.

Banks, J. (2014). Barriers and supports to postsecondary transition: Case studies of African

American students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 28-39.

Bruner, C. (1991). Thinking collaboratively: Ten questions and answers to help policy makers improve children’s services. ERIC Database (ED 338984)

Cartledge, G., Gardner, III, R., & Ford, D. Y. (2009). Diverse learners with exceptionalities: Culturally responsive teaching in the inclusive classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Everson, J. M. & Guillory, J. D. (2002). Interagency Teaming: Strategies for Facilitating Teams

from Forming through Performing. Human Development Center. Louisiana’s University

Center of Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service.

Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center.

Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, & Wehmeyer, M. (1998). Self-determination for persons with disabilities: A position statement of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21,113–128.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

Kim, K.-H., & Morningstar, M. E. (2005). Transition planning involving culturally and

linguistically diverse families. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 28, 92-

103.

Kohler, P. D. (1996). A taxonomy for transition programming: Linking research and practice. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Transition Research Institute.

Landmark, L. J., Ju, S., & Zhang, D. (2010). Substantiated best practices in transition: Fifteen plus years later. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 33, 165-176.

Leake, D., Black, R., & National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, Minneapolis,

MN. (2005). Cultural and Linguistic Diversity: Implications for Transition Personnel.

Essential Tools: Improving Secondary Education and Transition for Youth with

Disabilities. National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. Institute on

Community Integration, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, Retrieved from

www.ncset.org.

Leake, D. W., Black, R. S., & Roberts, K. (2003). Assumptions in transition planning: Are they

culturally sensitive? Impact, 16, 28-29.

Mazzotti, V. L., Rowe, D. A., Sinclair, J., Poppen, M., Woods, W. E., & Shearer, M. L. (2015).

Predictors of post-school success: A systematic review of NLTS2 secondary analyses.

Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38, 1-20.

Povenmire-Kirk, T. C., Bethune, L. K., Alverson, C. Y., & Gutman Kahn. L. (2015). Journey, not a destination: Developing cultural competence in secondary transition. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(6), 319-328.

Povenmire-Kirk, T., Diegelmann, K., Crump, K., Schnorr, C., Test, D., Flowers, C., & Aspel, N. (2015). Implementing CIRCLES: A new model for interagency collaboration in transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 42, 51-65.

Povenmire-Kirk, T. C., Lindstrom, L., & Bullis, M. (2010). De Escuela a la Vida Adulta/From school to adult life: Latino youth in transition from school to adult life. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33, 41-51.

Povenmire-Kirk, T. C., Test, D. W., Flowers, C., Diegelmann, K. M., Kemp-Inman, A., Ewers,

L., Wirt-Hamrick, J., Aspel, N., & Everson, J. M. (in submission). In the Driver’s Seat: CIRCLES as a Vehicle to Improve Service Delivery for Racially, Ethnically, and Linguistically Diverse Youth with Disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals.

Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup, J. H, Little, T. D., Garner, N.,

…Lawrence, M. (2007). Examining individual and ecological predictors for the self-

determination of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 73, 488-509.

Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, R., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160-181. doi:10.1177/0885728809346960

Trainor, A. A., Lindstrom, L., Simon-Burroughts, M., Martin, J. E., & Sorrells, A. M. (2008).

From marginalized to maximized opportunities for diverse youth with disabilities: A

position paper of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career

Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 56-64.

Appendices Table of Contents

Appendix A: Executive Summary ……………………………………………………..

39

Appendix B: Circles Overview
B1:
History and Overview Informational Presentation

………………………..
B2:
History and Rationale – Video

…………………………………………….
B3:
Team Roles and Responsibilities Matrix

………………………………….

42
43
44

Appendix C: Community Level Team (CLT) Resources
C1: Community Level Team (Video) …………………………………………
C2: Community Agency Invitation Letter Template ………………………….
C3: CIRCLES Community Level Team Agendas …………………………….
C4: CLT Nomination/Designation Sheet for School Level Team Members ….
C5: Interagency Agreement Form …………………………………………….
C6: Action Plan for New Districts …………………………………………….

46
47
48
52
53
57

Appendix D: School Level Team (SLT) Resources
D1: SLT Overview Resources …………………………………………………
D2: Using Technology to Increase Student Success …………………………..
D3: SLT Invitation Letter for Agencies ……………………………………….
D4: Sample Invitation Letter for Parents ………………………………………
D5: Sample Permission for Agency Involvement ……………………………..
D6: SLT Training Team Agenda ………………………………………………
D7: Student Dream Sheet ………………………………………………………
D8: Student Profile Sheet for SLT Members ………………………………….
D9: Student Presentation List ………………………………………………….
D10: SLT Signature Sheet ……………………………………………………..
D11: School-Level Team Meeting Minutes ……………………………………
D12: Special Educator Tasks to Prepare for School Level Team Meeting ……
D13: All About Me Template …………………………………….

73
76
77
78
80
81
83
86
87
89

90

92
93

Appendix E: IEP Resources
E1:
IEP Team with CIRCLES Video

………………………………………….
E2:
IEP Informational Presentation

……………………………………………
E3:
Transition Assessment Survey for Parents

………………………………..

94
95
96

Appendix F: Strategies for Teaming
F1: Video Resources …………………………………………………………..
F2: Forms and Documents …………………………………………………….

100
104

Appendix G: Evaluation
G1: IEP Participation Measure ………………………………………………..
G2: AIR Self-Determination Scale links ..…………………………………….
G3: Student-Agency Interaction Questionnaire ……………………………….
G4: Interagency Collaboration Survey Questions ……………………………..

105
106
107
108

Appendix H: Additional Resources and Contact Information …………………………

109

Appendix A: Executive Summary

Executive Summary
August 2016

Communicating Interagency Relationships and Collaborative Linkages for Exceptional Students (CIRCLES) is a transition-planning service delivery model designed to guide schools in implementing interagency collaboration among community, school, and IEP teams. A four-year cluster randomized trial research study was conducted by the University of North Carolina at Charlotte with funds from the Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Special Education Research (#RSA324A110018) was conducted to examine the efficacy of CIRCLES. The following summary provides a brief description of CIRCLES, research design, and findings of the research study.

Circles Intervention

The CIRCLES intervention involved three levels of interagency collaboration including Community-, School-, and IEP-level teams. These teams worked together to address transition planning needs of students with disabilities to improve both in-school and post-school student outcomes. CIRCLES allowed agencies to provide support services directly to students and families who needed involvement from multiple adult service providers.

Community-level team. The Community Level Team (CLT) was comprised of administrators and supervisors of every agency able to provide transition services and could include: Vocational Rehabilitation, Department of Social Services, Health Department, The Arc, Easter Seals, Autism Society, transportation, residential service providers, and any other local service providers. District level staff (e.g., transition coordinator, compliance specialist) organized and convened the CLT to address larger issues of access to services within the community. The CLTs meet between two to four times per year to work on issues at the policy level. One key role of CLT members is to appoint a direct service representative from their agency to serve on the School-Level Team (SLT).

School-level team. The School-level team (SLT) brings adult agency representatives to meet directly with students and their families. The SLT was comprised of direct service providers (e.g., case managers, counselors, care coordinators) from each agency represented on the CLT, those professionals whom special educators might traditionally invite to attend IEPs, but due to the large number of students being served, these representatives are often unable to attend IEPs for every student in need. District staff responsible for convening CIRCLES meetings invited direct service providers to attend one full-day meeting a month (during the school year), in which the team met with a student every 30-45 minutes, and could see up to 10 students a day. Students create 10-minute presentation that describe their strengths, areas of need, and post-school goals. For the remaining time allotted (20 – 40 minutes per student), members of the SLT talked with the student, his or her family, special educators, and one another to determine the best way to deliver transition services to each student. In addition to giving the student, parent, and special educators a personal contact to associate with each agency, the SLT format also allowed time for appointments to be made and questions to be answered by agency members. Families discussed any needs they may have had as a whole (e.g., poverty, homelessness, transportation, food insecurity, guardianship assistance). Agencies negotiated with one another and the student and family to create the most comprehensive plan to meet each student’s specific needs.

IEP team. The IEP team is the final level in the CIRCLES multi-level approach. After the SLT meeting, special education teachers took the minutes of the SLT meeting to the IEP meeting and wrote the transition component based on the services agreed upon at the SLT. This process enabled the IEP team to write the other components of the IEP with the end goals of the student in mind. Because the district-level school staff were responsible for convening the CLT and SLT meetings, the time special education teachers typically spent inviting folks to IEP meetings was freed up for preparing students for SLT and IEP meetings.

Research Methods

A cluster randomized trial, where schools served as clusters, was used to assign schools into treatment conditions. Forty-four schools were randomly assigned into either the CIRCLES or Business-as-Usual (BAU) condition. All students in grades 10th to 12th who were receiving services under IDEA (2004) with Individualized Education Plans (IEP) were eligible to participate. Participating schools were asked to recruit at least 10 students for inclusion in the research component of the study. Most students who participated in the study were classified as specific learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, other heath impairments, and other. There were no statistically significant differences between the CIRCLES or BAU conditions on disability classification. Given the multilevel structure of the data, with students nested within schools, multilevel modeling using posttest data collection was used to investigate the differences between the CIRCLES and BAU conditions. Survey research method was used to examine stakeholders’ perceptions of transition services.

Research Questions and Findings

Research findings are organized by the research questions. The first two research questions examined differences between the in-school measures of students IEP participation and self-determination. The third questions investigated difference in post-school outcomes (i.e., employment and school). The final question examined stakeholders’ perceptions about the effectiveness of transition services in the CIRCLES condition.

Research Question 1. Was CIRCLES more effective than the BAU model at increasing student’s participation in IEP meetings? Using HLM, the effects of CIRCLES for the IEP participation level suggested that there were statistically significant CIRCLES effects for IEP participation (γ01= .72, SE = .23, p<.01, r2 = 22%). CIRCLES explained 22% of the between measures variance in IEP participation. Students in the CIRCLES condition had a much higher level of IEP participation that students in the BAU condition.

Research Question 2. Was CIRCLES more effective than the business-as-usual (BAU) model at increasing students’ self-determination level? There were statistically significant higher CIRCLES effects for educators’ ratings of Capacity (γ01=. 22, SE = .07, p<.01, r2 = 21%) and Opportunity (γ01=. 23, SE = .08, p<.01, r2 = 18%). CIRCLES explained 21% and 18% of the between measures variance in educators’ Capacity and Opportunity, respectively. These results indicate that educators reported higher levels of students’ Capacity and Opportunity in the CIRCLES condition as compared to the BAU condition. For students’ self-ratings of self-determination, there were significant effects for Opportunity (γ01=. 19, SE = .08, p<.01, r2 = 17%), but there were no CIRCLES effects for Capacity (γ01=-.04, SE = .08, p>.05). The results indicate that students in the CIRCLES condition had higher on average levels of Opportunity, but there were no differences between the groups for the Capacity outcome.

Research Question 3. Was CIRCLES more effective than the business-as-usual (BAU) model at increasing student’s post-school outcomes? For post-school outcome results, there was not a statistically significant difference between treatment conditions of post-school outcomes. It should be noted that the sample size (35 schools and 220 students) was smaller than all other analyses, suggesting limited power for detecting effects of conditions.

Research Question 4. How did key stakeholders view CIRCLES? Parents, students, school and community-agency personnel who participated in CIRCLES received a survey about their perception and satisfaction with transition services. Results of the parent survey (N=77) indicated that (a) 100% agreed they had an active role in the process of preparing their child for life after high school, (b) 100% agreed they understood their child’s needs and goals, and (c) 92% agreed they communicated regularly with school personnel on the process of preparing their child for life after high school. The student survey (N=142) indicated that (a) 92% agreed they were involved in preparing goals for their future after high school, (b) 87% agreed their high school was helpful in preparing them for college, (c) 86% agreed their high school was helpful in preparing them for employment, and (d) 93% agreed they knew what adult services would help them after high school. Survey results for school and community agency personnel reported (a) All CIRCLES schools and community agencies reported increased collaboration, (b) Schools reported high levels of collaboration, but saw a need to reach out to more local businesses, community agencies, and technical education providers, and (c) Community agencies reported collaboration through CIRCLES strengthened their own outcomes, but still saw a need to “braid” financial resources.

Implications for Practice

Findings from the current study indicate both teachers and students involved in CIRCLES indicated students had greater participation in IEP meetings and greater opportunity to practice and demonstrate self-determination skills than did students in BAU schools. As a result, CIRCLES provides educators with a “two-for-one” strategy. By helping students prepare their presentation for the SLT meeting, presenting to the SLT, discussing adult services options with the SLT, and then using the same presentation at their IEP meeting, educators can provide multiple opportunities for students to learn and practice valuable self-determination skills. Survey results of key stakeholders also supported the positive impact of CIRCLES for transition planning.

Unfortunately, participation in CIRCLES did not increase student post-school outcomes. To date, the only predictor (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009) of improved post-school outcomes that has been causally linked to improved post-school outcomes is community-based work experience programs (Cobb et al., 2013). However, educators must still implement practices and strategies that have the best available evidence. For now, these results indicate in order to provide students with the best chance for post-school success, their program of study should include community-based work experiences combined with additional predictors of improved post-school outcomes. For students whose IEP goals, objectives, and transition services indicate the need for increased self-determination skills and linkages to adult services, CIRCLES is recommended.

Appendix B1

History and Overview Informational Presentation

Appendix B2

History and Rationale – Video

Appendix B3

CIRCLES Grant: Team Descriptions and Responsibilities Table

Team	Community Level	School Level	Individual Level
Key Purpose	*Build sustainability of CIRCLES by aligning community secondary transition & adult services systems. *Administrative leadership for total array of transition services offered *Finds solutions for problems that arise	*Provides student access to various representatives from community agencies	*Writes IEP including Transition Component *Ensure input from students and parents re: transition planning process
Team Members	*Exceptional Children’s Coordinator *Principals, *Transition coordinator, *School board rep, *Parent rep, *Business rep, *Administrator for local C of C, *Postsecondary ed rep, *Administrative reps from public service agencies (voc rehab, workforce development, transportation providers, etc) *Administrative reps from other community service agencies (group homes, advocacy groups, etc)	*Student *High school transition coordinators, *special populations coordinator (voc ed) *Regular education teacher, *military recruiter, *parent, *case managers or other direct *service reps from community service agencies	*Student *Parent *School reps *Reps from outside agencies
Team Responsibilities	*Work to solve issues that directly relate to students: *Identify community resources *Develop & update interagency service agreements *Coordinate staff development *Share info re: employment of individuals w/ disabilities	*Facilitates the transition planning process evolving around “student-centered planning philosophy” *Provides information and pre-planning to guide Student-level team’s IEP process *Develop timelines for postgraduate needs with student and parent input *Conduct pre-planning transition meeting	*Takes transition planning information and develops IEP *Review info related to present level of performance and future goals *Develop transition component and IEP *Provide additional info re: transition process *Address all other relevant student issues
Meetings	*2 -4 times per year for *1 – 2 hours	*Monthly excluding December, June and July *Meetings last 20 minutes to 2 hours.	*May occur at any time based on need for development and revision of IEP *May last from 1 – 3 hours, as necessary

Team Roles and Responsibilities Matrix

Appendix C1:

Community Level Team (Video)

Appendix C2

Community Agency Invitation Letter Template

Dear (Community Agency),

Our school district has been selected to participate in an intervention involving interagency collaboration for students with disabilities. This project, CIRCLES (Communicating Interagency Relationships and Collaborative Linkages for Exceptional Students) is a four-year intervention study that will examine the effects of a multi-level model (i.e., community, school, IEP) of interagency collaboration on transition outcomes. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte is conducting this study in collaboration with (Your County Here) County Schools and other Local Education Agencies as part of a grant funded by the Institute for Educational Sciences through the US Department of Education.

As a leader in the community, we would like to invite you to be a part of this community-level team. Through collaborative efforts with other county and community agencies, we would like your input in the identification of community resources, development of interagency service agreements, coordination of staff development activities, and sharing information related to employment of individuals with disabilities. Community-level teams will meet 2 to 4 times per year, as needed.

Someone from our school district will be contacting you with additional information and to personally invite you to join our community level team. We are looking forward to your participation.

Sincerely,

109

Appendix C3

CIRCLES Community Level Team Agendas

CIRCLES Community Level Team (CLT) AGENDA

CLT Meeting #1 Date:

20 minutes

15 minutes

10 minutes

10 minutes

Item

Time Allotted

Discussion (Key Points, Motions, concerns)

Action Voted

Next Steps/ Due Date

Who is Responsible?

Introductions

10 minutes

Ice Breaker

15 minutes

Description of CIRCLES

20 minutes

Values, Mission, Vision

Who Else Should Be Here?

10 minutes

School-Level Team Designations (Pass around sign up sheet)

Schedule Next Meetings

Parking Lot and Next Agenda Items

TOTAL MINUTES

110

ON THE BACK: Values, Mission, Vision

CIRCLES Community Level Team (CLT) AGENDA

CLT Meeting #2 Date:

Item

Time Allotted

Discussion (Key Points, Motions, concerns)

Action Voted

Next Steps/ Due Date

Who is Responsible?

Ice Breaker

10 minutes

10 minutes

10 minutes

Who Else Should Be Here?

Schedule Next Meetings

10 minutes

TOTAL MINUTES

110

	Review Values, Mission, Vision statements
Brief Recap of CIRCLES
		Report of Progress on School-Level Team Meetings			20 minutes
Agency Introductions: What services? To whom? Challenges you face in providing services?	40 minutes
			5 minutes
		5 minutes
Parking Lot and Next Agenda Items

ON THE BACK: Values, Mission, Vision

CIRCLES Community Level Team (CLT) AGENDA

CLT Meeting #3 Date:

Item

Time Allotted

Discussion (Key Points, Motions, concerns)

Action Voted

Next Steps/ Due Date

Who is Responsible?

Ice Breaker

10 minutes

10 minutes

10 minutes

Report of Progress on School-Level Team Meetings

20 minutes

10 minutes

Who Else Should Be Here?

5 minutes

Schedule Next Meetings

5 minutes

10 minutes

TOTAL MINUTES

110

Review Values, Mission, Vision statements, make changes?
	Brief Recap of CIRCLES (Only if you have new members)
Review Challenges Identified by Agencies at CLT #2
Identify CLT Goals for the Year		30 minutes
		Parking Lot and Next Agenda Items

ON THE BACK:

Values, Mission, Vision

CIRCLES Community Level Team (CLT) AGENDA

CLT Meeting #4 Date:

Item

Time Allotted

Discussion (Key Points, Motions, concerns)

Action Voted

Next Steps/ Due Date

Who is Responsible?

Ice Breaker

10 minutes

Review Values, Mission, Vision statements

5 minutes

Brief Recap of CIRCLES (Only if you have new members)

10 minutes

Report of Progress on School-Level Team Meetings

20 minutes

10 minutes

30 minutes

Schedule Next Meetings

5 minutes

Parking Lot and Next Agenda Items

10 minutes

TOTAL MINUTES

Review Goals Identified by Agencies at CLT #3

Identify Next Steps for CLT Goals for the Year

100

ON THE BACK:
Values, Mission, Vision

Appendix C4

CLT Nomination/Designation Sheet for SLT Members

Agency

Representative Name

Email

Telephone

Role

Appendix C5
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT FOR TRANSITION SERVICES IN ____________________
PURPOSE

The purpose of this agreement is to facilitate the coordination of services to students with disabilities, ages 14 and above (or younger if needed), within ______________during transition from school-to-work and community living. For each individual to experience successful transition from school to post-secondary activities, an array of support and training opportunities are essential. A Community Level Transition Committee composed of parents, governmental agencies, community organizations, and private industry, is needed to provide leadership in developing an appropriate service delivery system. To accomplish this task the following services will be provided by each of the participating agencies.

This agreement is made and entered into between ___________________________ and the local governmental and private agencies responsible for adult services for individuals with disabilities.

GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES

A. The agencies agree to support the development of regulations, policies and practices for a community transition committee.

B. The agencies agree to exchange information regarding program goals and student/client needs when appropriate.

C. The agencies agree to provide in-service training as needed.

D. The agencies agree to provide representation at quarterly meetings for the purpose of evaluating and planning cooperative services.

E. The agencies agree to provide representation on the school level transition teams when necessary.

LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES AGREE TO:

A. Provide the following services for students with disabilities based on need: (1) Job Placement, (2) Job Coaching (3) Vocational Assessment (4) Vocational Counseling (5) Modified Curriculum (6) Service Coordination (7) Job Follow-Up until exit from school (8) Follow-up annually after graduation or exit from school for a period of 3 years for the purpose of program evaluation.

THE COMMUNITY AGENCIES

Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Services Agrees To:

·

Support transition services to young adults with developmental disabilities.

· Provide routine consultation with other agencies, referral to residential services, vocational follow-up, and post-graduation counseling.

· Provide certification of students for determining CAP-MR/DD, ADVP, and CBS

eligibility.

· Attend scheduled conferences of students in transition when appropriate before they

exit the school program.

· Provide case management services for eligible students

_____________Community College Agrees To:

· Provide services to students who have been admitted to the Community College

System.

· Support and assist youth with disabilities in job training and assessment through

enrollment in the curriculum program.

· Provide job placement services, career exploration and counseling, job seeking skills,

and financial aid to eligible students.

· Assist eligible students in accessing compensatory education and adult basic education

classes.

· Attend scheduled conferences of students in transition when appropriate before they

exit the school program.

The Community Rehabilitation Agency Agrees To:

· Support transitional services of identified young adults who are developmentally

disabled.

· Coordinate and assist with referral of students to the community rehabilitation agency.

· Provide services through vocational skill training, vocational evaluation, job

placement, job coaching, case coordination, long-term follow-up, and short-term

follow-up to eligible clients.

· Attend scheduled conferences of students in transition when appropriate before they
exit the school program.

Department of Social Services Agrees To:

· Support transition services of young adults with developmental disabilities.

· Provide routine consultation with other agencies making referrals for residential and

transportation services.

· Assist in the coordination of WorkFirst programs and transition services

· Assist with guardianship issues.

· Attend scheduled conferences of students in transition when appropriate before they

exit school.

Employment Security Commission of North Carolina (Job-Link Center) Agrees To:

· Provide transition services to any U.S. citizen or individual authorized to work by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service, who is of legal age.

· Provide services by distributing labor market and career information along

with appropriate and suitable job placement assistance to eligible clients.

· Attend scheduled conferences of students in transition when appropriate before they
exit the school program.

Workforce Investment Act Program Agrees To:

· Support transition services of economically disadvantaged youth.

· Provide services through career planning, career assessment, job training,

apprenticeships, job placement, support for educational services, and support services

to eligible and suitable clients.

· Attend scheduled conferences of students in transition when appropriate before they

exit school.

The Recreation Department Agrees To:

· Support transition services of individuals with disabilities.

· Provide services through various recreational opportunities and facilities.

· Attend scheduled conferences of students in transition when appropriate before they
exit the school program.
The Local Transportation Authority Agrees To:

· Provide social service agency transportation under a single provider concept to clients

of public and private non-profit agencies in Cleveland County.

· Provide transportation to the general public on a private contract basis.

· Support transition services to individuals with disabilities through consultation

services to teachers, students, and parents.

· Attend scheduled conferences of students in transition when appropriate before they
exit school.

Vocational Rehabilitation Agrees To:

· Support transition services of individuals with disabilities that will result in an

employment outcome.

· Coordinate referral of Vocational Rehabilitation clients.

· Sponsor in-school adjustment training, and job coaching services.

· Provide vocational evaluations, counseling, training and transportation assistance to

eligible individuals based on need.

· Provide follow-up services for employed students who have exited the school system.

· Provide all services indicated in the cooperative school system -VR agreement.

· Attend scheduled conferences of students in transition when appropriate before they
exit the school program.

Social Security Administration Agrees To:

· Assist students and their families in determining eligibility for benefits.

· Assist students and their families in accessing work incentives.

· Provide consultation to school personnel regarding social security benefits and related

issues.

· Attend scheduled conferences of students in transition when appropriate before they

exit the school program.

This agreement will be renegotiated on an annual basis. This agreement is being entered into

on

_______________________________________

______________.

Note: Signatures of Representatives of Participating Agencies should be attached.

Reprinted with permission of Shelby City Schools, TASSEL, 1997.

Appendix C6
Action Plan for New Districts

CIRCLES TRAINING INSTITUTE (CTI)

ACTION PLAN (for new incoming districts)

PART 1:

Membership:

Identify Potential Team Members: Identify the interagency members and the intra-agency members.

Community Level Team:

Vision/Values/Mission

Vision: What are the goals for this team? What would you like to see in a perfect world?

Values: What values do you share as team member? What values drive your vision?

Mission: What will your shared mission be? How will you know if your team is functioning appropriately or not?

Goals:

Roles:

Process:

Part 2:

Resource Assessment

Identify community resources in all post-secondary domains.

Domain

Agency

Contact Person

Responsible Party?

Postsecondary Education or Vocational Training

Employment

Independent Living

Community
Participation

Role Clarification:

Clarify desired roles of service providers (Both the role of the agencies and the individuals represented on the team in the provision of transition services of the actual “front line” {e.g. case manager, VR counselor, etc.})

Domain

Agency/Individual

Role

Postsecondary Education or Vocational Training

Employment

Independent Living

Community
Participation

Interagency Agreements:

Make plans for interagency agreements: list potential contacts, create drafts (see sample interagency agreement in Sample Documents), ask questions of project staff, etc.

Important points:

Plan initial organizational meeting:

Meeting

Date

Location

Community Level Team

School Level Team

Tentative agenda:

Community Level Team:

Part 3:

Resource Management:

Identify sources of additional funding (or ways in which funding can be blended, overlapped, etc.). List Potential Sources of Funding or ideas for blending/overlapping:

Also need to look at resources (other than funding) that can be blended, shared, etc.:

Standard Operating Procedure:

Please indicate plans for each of the below mentioned items and who is responsible:

Orientation Activities:

Frequency, time & Length of Meetings:

Meeting Reminders:

Member Absences:

Agenda:

Celebration?

Networking:

Identify community needs in the area of employment and other related adult services:

Coordinate community awareness activities.

Potential Activity

Purpose

Audience

Involved Agencies

Responsible Party/Timeline

Job Development:

Activity

Agency

Coordination Activities

Job Placement:

Activity

Agency

Coordination Activities

Part 4:

Membership:

School Level Team Members:

Structure:

How will your school level team be structured? How many schools will it serve? Where will it meet? How often?

Student and Family Involvement:

List some steps you may take to increase and enhance Student Involvement:

Parent Involvement

Barriers:

Develop strategies and generate solutions for overcoming barriers to service delivery. This activity should be done AGAIN with your Community Level and School Level Teams, but let’s get started – what are some potential barriers that you know exist?

Potential Barriers

Potential Solutions

Policies/Procedures involved

Part 5:

Pre-Planning:

Standard Operating Procedures:

Consider how your team will handle each of the following:

· Participant Training

· Frequency, time, and length of meetings

· Environmental arrangements

· Breaks and refreshments

· Meeting reminders

· Member absences

· Agenda development

· Documentation

· Team member roles and behavior

· Celebration

Part 6:

Student-Led IEP meetings:

List below strategies to develop student-led IEP meetings that would work for your school:

Coordinate job development and job placements among service providers:

Information only – NOT part of Action Plan:

General team Responsibilities for School-Level Team

1. Develop orientation process for new team members.

2. Assist in post-school follow-up on students and provide this information to team members.

3. Assist in analyzing post-school data to increase effectiveness of the delivery of transition services.

4. Assist in the evaluation of transition team planning.

5. Ensure smooth transfer of case management from public schools to other adult service providers.

6. Ensure open communication between school personnel and adult service providers outside of School Level Team meetings.

NOTES:

School Level Team Meeting Preparation Checklist

You may find it useful to designate a responsible party for each of these tasks.

1. Prepare the list of students to be presented at the team meeting no later than one month in advance.

2. Prepare written invitations to the planning meeting for students and their parent(s)/guardian no later than one month in advance. (clarify for parents – this is NOT the Invitation to Conference for IEP meetings)

3. Make needed transportation and daycare arrangements for students and their parent(s)/guardian in order to ensure their attendance at the meeting.

4. Notify core team members of the students scheduled for presentation to the School Level Transition Team, ensuring parent or student (if over18) permission to involve outside agencies.

5. School-specific team members of the students scheduled for presentation to the School Level Transition Team. (School staff don’t necessarily “present” at the meetings)

6. Send written invitations to student-specific members.

7.

Follow-up with telephone calls to ensure their attendance.

8.

Review with students the purpose of and the format for the meeting.

9.

Obtain input from the student regarding agenda items and suggestions for individuals to invite other than the ones previously determined.

10. Update the Student Dream Sheet (or other student input document/informal transition planning survey) annually.

11.

Provide student with an opportunity to practice for his or her meeting. This can involve viewing videotapes of previous meetings, role-playing, or discussing the process with an upperclassman. Students should understand that they are expected to take a lead role in their meeting. Teachers should assist students in what information needs to be shared with the team, how to state their post-school goals, how to request for services, appropriate questions to ask, and how to negotiate/compromise. This process should be related to the objectives in the Occupational Preparation courses in the Occupational Course of Study.

12.

Assist student in organizing a Career Portfolio for presentation to the team members. (exit meeting only)

13.

Send parents information regarding the School Level Transition Team process. Provide them with an opportunity to ask questions regarding the team meeting and give additional input regarding their child’s future goals (update the Student Mapping Form – this should be done annually).

14.

Finalize the agendas for each student meeting.

15.

Complete the School Level Transition Team Information Form.

16.

Make copies of this form for all team members.

17. Have student educational records available at the meeting for reference as needed

18. Set up the environment for the meeting and make arrangements to ensure the smooth entrance and exit of students and their parent(s)/guardian.

School Level Team Meeting Procedures Checklist

1. Each student and their transition Special Educator or Transition Coordinator co-chair the meeting unless the student has acquired the skills to chair their meeting independently (which is the goal for all students).

2. Each team member receives a copy of the School Level Transition Team Information Form.

3. The meeting begins with introductions.

4. Following introductions, the student and/or teacher states the purpose of the meeting.

5. Post-school outcome goals for each of the three domains (employment, education/training, independent living skills) will be indicated by the student and/or teacher.

6. These goals will be stated one at a time followed by an update on the student’s progress in each area. The focus question is “How are we going to get from where we are now to where we need to be by graduation?”

7. During this discussion, team members provide suggestions for transition activities related to the student’s future goals.

8. Team members provide information regarding their role in these activities.

9. At the conclusion of the meeting, the student and/or teacher will summarize the discussion; clarified recommendations, assignments of responsibility, and timelines.

10. The process for follow-up will addressed.

11. Prior to the student and his or her parents leaving the transition meeting, all team members will sign the Transition Team Signature sheet.

Special Education Coordinator in Preparation for School Level Meeting Checklist

1. Establish meeting times for individual students within the timeframe allotted for the whole meeting.

2. Obtain a location with the high school for the meeting and arranging the environment to make it as welcoming as possible.

3. Ensure that parents and students have transportation to the meeting and arrange for daycare if needed to facilitate student and parent to attendance.

4. Introduce team members.

5. Explain the absence of team members from meetings and make arrangements for absent team members to receive information from the meeting.

6. Assist the student in leading his or her meeting and provide the student with support during discussions.

7. Appoint a team member to serve as recorder for the meetings

8. Provide copies of meeting minutes to all team members who were assigned specific tasks.

Appendix D1

SLT Overview Resources

·

School Level Team (Part 1)

·

School Level Team (Part 2)

·

10 Steps to Planning and Conducting a Successful SLT Meeting (Steps 1-5)

·

10 Steps to Planning and Conducting a Successful SLT Meeting (Steps 6-10)

·

Preparing Students for the SLT Transition Team Meeting (Part 1)

·

Preparing Students for the SLT Transition Team Meeting (Part 2)

Appendix D2

Using Technology to Increase Student Success

·

Using Technology to Enhance Student Participation

·

Web 2.0 Instructions

Directions for Popular Web-Based Tools:

·

Animoto

·

Brainshark

·

GoAnimate

·

ToonDoo

·

Voki

·

Wobook

·

Wordle

Appendix D3

Sample SLT Invitation Letter for Agencies

Dear ________________________,

On ____________________________ at ____________________ in _____________________

(Date) (Time) (Room Number)

at

_____________________________, a school level transition team meeting will be held for

(Location)

______________________________. At this meeting, the team will be assisting this student and

(Student Name)

his or her parents in making plans for life after graduation. Items to be discussed at this meeting

include a review of the student’s achievements, post-school goals, and strategies for the

accomplishment of post-school goals. ________________ would like you to attend his/her

(Student Name)

meeting. Please make every effort to attend this important meeting. If you cannot attend, please

call ______________________________ (Exceptional Children’s Teacher)

at __________________________ or email at ___________________________________ so

(Phone Number) (email address)

your input can be obtained. Thank you for your support of ____________________________

(student name)

and his/her future dreams and goals.

Sincerely,

_______________________________________

(Exceptional Children’s Teacher)

Appendix D4

Sample Invitation Letter for Parents

Dear ________________________,

On ____________________________ at ____________________ in Room # _______ at

_____________________________, a school level transition team meeting will be held for

______________________________. At this meeting, the team will be assisting your child and

in making plans for life after graduation. At the meeting, your child will be sharing his/her

dreams for the future and ideas for how team members can help with achieve those dreams. Also

attending this meeting will be the following school staff:

Name

Position

In addition, community agency representatives from the following agencies will be in attendance:

Name

Position

Agency

Please sign the attached permission for the above agency representatives to meet with your child. We look forward to seeing you at this important meeting. However, tf you cannot attend, please

call ______________________________at __________________________ or email at ____________________________ so your input can be obtained. Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Appendix D5

Sample Permission for Agency Involvement

Student Name:

______________________________________

Please sign below to indicate that you give permission for the agency representatives listed below to be involved with your child’s school level transition team meeting. Please feel free to list any other agency representatives you would like to have invited to the meeting.

_____ Vocational Rehabilitation

_____ Division for the Blind

_____ Pathways Representative

____ Recreation Representative

____ DSS Representative (Adult Services)

_____ Case Management Services:

____________________________________________

_________

_____ CAP Services Provider: _________________________________________________________

_____ Day Treatment Provider: ________________________________________________________

_____ Developmental Therapy Provider: ________________________________________________

_____ Counseling Provider: ___________________________________________________________

_____ Intensive In-Home Provider: _____________________________________________________

_____ Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) Provider: __________________________________________

_____ Outside Therapy: PT: _______________________________________________________

OT: _______________________________________________________

Speech: ___________________________________________________

_____ Other:

____________________________________________________________________

___

_____ Other:

_____________________________________________________________________

__
____________________________________________
Parent
____________________________________________
Date

Appendix D6

School Level Team Training AGENDA

SLT Meeting #1 Date:

Item

Time Allotted

Discussion (Key Points, Motions, concerns)

Action Voted

Next Steps/ Due Date

Who is Responsible?

Introductions

10 minutes

Ice Breaker

10 minutes

Who Else Should Be Here?

10 minutes

Schedule Next Meetings

5 minutes

Parking Lot and Next Agenda Items

10 minutes

TOTAL MINUTES

Review Values, Mission, Vision statements (use CLT version, but be open to changes)	15 minutes
CIRCLES Overview	30 minutes
90

ON THE BACK:
Values, Mission, Vision

Appendix D7

Student Dream Sheet

Student Name: _____________________________ Initial Date: _____________

School:

___________________________________ Teacher: ________________

Review Dates: ________________________ _______________________

________________________ _______________________

Anticipated Date of Graduation: ______________________

The following questions will be used to assist in transition planning activities and to determine post-school goals.

1. Where do you want to live after graduation? ________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

What kind of housing? _________________________________________________

2. How do you intend to continue learning after graduation? _____________________

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

What types of things do you want to learn after graduation? ____________________

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

Where do you want this learning to occur? _________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

3. What kind of job do you want now? _______________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

4. What kind of job do you want when you graduate? ___________________________

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

5. Where do you want to work? ____________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

6. What type of work schedule do you want? __________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

7. What type of pay and benefits do you want from your future job? ________________

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

8. What types of chores do you do at home? ___________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

9. What equipment/tools can you use? _______________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

10. Do you have any significant medical problems that need to be considering when determining post-school goals? ___________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

11. What choices do you make now? _________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

12. What choices are made for you that you want to take charge of? __________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

13. What kind of transportation will you use after graduation? _______________________

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

14. What do you do for fun now? ____________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

15. What would you like to do for fun in the future? _______________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix D8

Student Profile Sheet for SLT Members

Date: _____________

Student Name: _________________________ School: __________________

Student DOB: __________________________

EC Disability Category: _________________________

Strengths: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General Student Info (IQ, Academic Testing Results, Academic Behaviors, MH Dx, etc): _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Areas of Need: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Post School Goals:

Education/Training: _________________________________________________

Employment: ______________________________________________________

Independent Living: _________________________________________________

Teacher Perspective: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Parent Perspective: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Other Important Information: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix D9

Student Presentation List

Student Name:
Parent Guardian:
School:
Exceptional Children’s Teacher:
Graduation Date:

Student Name:
Parent Guardian:
School:
Exceptional Children’s Teacher:
Graduation Date:

Student Name:
Parent Guardian:
School:
Exceptional Children’s Teacher:
Graduation Date:

Student Name:
Parent Guardian:
School:
Exceptional Children’s Teacher:
Graduation Date:

Student Name:
Parent Guardian:
School:
Exceptional Children’s Teacher:
Graduation Date:

Student Name:
Parent Guardian:
School:
Exceptional Children’s Teacher:
Graduation Date:

Student Name:
Parent Guardian:
School:
Exceptional Children’s Teacher:
Graduation Date:

Student Name:
Parent Guardian:
School:
Exceptional Children’s Teacher:
Graduation Date:

Student Name:
Parent Guardian:
School:
Exceptional Children’s Teacher:
Graduation Date:

Student Name:
Parent Guardian:
School:
Exceptional Children’s Teacher:
Graduation Date:

Student Name:
Parent Guardian:
School:
Exceptional Children’s Teacher:
Graduation Date:

Student Name:
Parent Guardian:
School:
Exceptional Children’s Teacher:
Graduation Date:

Student Name:
Parent Guardian:
School:
Exceptional Children’s Teacher:
Graduation Date:

Student Name:
Parent Guardian:
School:
Exceptional Children’s Teacher:
Graduation Date:

Student Name: Parent Guardian: School: Exceptional Children’s Teacher: Graduation Date:

Student Name: Parent Guardian: School: Exceptional Children’s Teacher: Graduation Date:

Appendix D10

SLT Signature Sheet

School Level Team Signature Sheet

Agency

Position

Email

Printed Name	Signature	Phone	Date

Appendix D11

School-Level Team Meeting Minutes

Date:

Present:

Student:

School:

Goals:

			Education				Employment				Independent Living

Student:

School:

Goals:

Education

Employment

Independent Living

Student:

School:

Goals:

Education

Employment

Independent Living

Student:

School:

Goals:

Education

Employment

Independent Living

Appendix D12

Special Educator Tasks to Prepare for School Level Team Meeting

Prepare list of students to be presented at team meeting no later than one month in advance.

Establish meeting times for individual students within the timeframe allotted for the school at the school level meeting, taking into consideration the annual review dates of the IEPs (See Priority Matrix).

Notify core team members of students scheduled for presentation to the School Level Team.

Prepare written invitations (not an “IEP Invitation to Conference”) to the planning meeting for students and their parent(s)/guardian no later than one month in advance. Include information about the School Level Team process (see school rep for templates).

Obtain a “Release of Information” form* from parent/guardian or student if over 18 years of age to share information with core team members.

Obtain “Permission to Invite Agencies” form* from parent/guardian or student if over 18 to invite student specific team members. Be sure to obtain parent and student input on team composition.

Make necessary transportation and daycare arrangements for students and their parent(s)/guardian in order to ensure their attendance at the meeting.

Schedule school-specific team members (not already on the team) of the students scheduled for presentation to the School Level Team.

Review purpose of and format for meeting with students.

Obtain input from students regarding agenda items.

Update Student Dream Sheet* (or other student input document/informal transition planning survey) annually.

Clarify expectations for student involvement in meeting and provided student with training and an opportunity to practice for his or her meeting. (e.g., viewing videotapes, role-playing, scripting, PowerPoint presentations, Web-based tools*).

Provide parents with an opportunity to ask questions regarding the process, give input regarding their child’s future goals (e.g., Parent Transition Survey, Parent Interview, etc.), and suggest agenda items.

Finalize agendas for each student meeting.

Ensure that student educational records are available at the meeting for reference as needed

Appendix D13

ALL ABOUT ME PowerPoint Template

How you can help me…

How you can help me…

Students will use words, images, graphics, and hyperlinks to create a page for each topic listed below.
1.	Hello Page
2.	About me (age, grade, school)
3.	My strengths
4.	My hobbies
5.	Things that are hard for me
6.	My favorite subject in school
7.	Things I like to do for fun
8.	Things I don’t like to do
9.	My future plans for working after high school
10.	What I have done to get ready
11.			How you can help me…
12.	My future plans for Education/Training after high school
13.
14.	My future plans for Independent Living after high school
15.
16.	Something no one knows about me

Appendix E1

IEP Team with CIRCLES Video

Appendix E2

IEP Informational Presentation

Appendix E3

Transition Assessment Survey for Parents

TRANSITION ASSESSMENT SURVEY FOR PARENTS

Dear Parents,

As your son or daughter moves closer to graduation, it is important to begin to plan for his/her future. At the next meeting the IEP team will develop a transition component for your child’s Individualized Education Program. The transition component will identify future goals for your son/daughter and ways to support him/her in reaching these goals. We would like to see all our students become productive members of society. Your input and involvement is critical. Please take a few minutes to complete this Transition Assessment. Think of your son/daughter as an adult after graduation and identify your dreams/goals for him/her.

Student Name: _____________________________ Parent Name: ______________

Initial Date: _______________________________ Updated: __________________

Employment:

I think my son/daughter could work in:

· Full time regular job (competitive employment)

· Part time regular job (competitive employment)

· A job that has support and is supervised, full or part time (supported employment) Military Service (Branch: _________________________)

· Volunteer Work

· Other: ________________________________________

My son’s/daughter’s strengths in the area of employment are:

My son/daughter seems to be interested in working as:

When I think of my son/daughter working, I am afraid that:

To work, my son/daughter needs to develop job-related skills in:

Post-Secondary Education/Training:

Future education/training for my son/daughter should include (check all that apply):

· College or University (4-year degree)

· Community College (2-year degree or certification program)

· Vocational Training at a Vocational School

· On-the-Job Training

· Adult Basic Education classes at the Community College

· Compensatory Education classes at the Community College

· Life Skills classes

· Other: ______________________________________

My son’s/daughter’s educational strengths are:

To attend post-secondary education/training, my son/daughter will need to develop skills in:

Independent Living:

After graduation, my son/daughter will live:

· On his/her own in a house or an apartment

· With a roommate

· In a supervised living situation (group home, supervised apartment)

· With parents

· With other family members

· Other: ____________________________________

My son’s/daughter’s strength(s) in the area of independent living are:

When I think about where my son/daughter will live in the future, I am afraid that:

To live as independently as possible, my son or daughter needs to develop skills in:

Community Participation:

When my son/daughter graduates, I hope he/she is involved in (check all that apply):

· Independent recreational activities

· Activities with friends Activities with family members

· Organized recreational activities (club, team sports)

· Classes (to develop hobbies, and explore areas of interest)

· Supported and supervised recreational activities

· Accessing community services/businesses

· Other: _________________________________________

During free time, my son or daughter enjoys:

My son’s/daughter’s strength(s) in the area of community participation are:

When I think of the free time my son or daughter will have after graduation, I am afraid that:

To be active and enjoy leisure time, my son or daughter needs to develop skills in:

Transportation:

When my son/daughter graduates, he/she will (check all that apply):

· Have a driver’s license and a car

· Walk, or ride a bike

· Use transportation independently (bus, taxi, train)

· Use supported transportation (family, service groups, car pool, special program)

· Other: _________________________________

My son’s/daughter’s strength(s) in the area of transportation are:

When I think of my son/daughter traveling around the community I worry about:

To access transportation my son/daughter needs to develop skills in:

Review items in the following three areas. Please identify areas in which your son or daughter needs information/support.

Social/Interpersonal:

_____ Making friends

_____ Setting goals

_____ Family relationships

_____ Handling legal responsibilities

_____ Handling anger

_____ Communicating his or her needs/wants

_____ Relationships with the opposite sex

_____ Counseling

_____ Other: ________________________________

Personal Management:

_____ Hygiene

_____ Safety

_____ Mobility/transportation

_____ Domestic skills

_____ Money management/budgeting

_____ Time/time management

_____ Personal care

_____ Other: _________________________________

Health:

_____ Ongoing care for a serious medical condition

_____ Sex education

_____ AIDS awareness

_____ Information on drug/alcohol abuse

_____ Other: __________________________________

McAlaran, S.J. (1993). The Colorado transition manual. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Education

Appendix F1

Video Resources

·
Collaborative Teaming

·
Forming and Storming

·
Norming and Performing

·
Communicating Effectively

·
Managing Conflict

·
Teamwork Productivity

·
Membership

Appendix F2
·
Action Plan for New Districts

·
Interagency Teaming Guide

·
Team Roles and Responsibility Matrix

Appendix G1
AIR Self-Determination Scales

AIR Self-Determination Scale Student Form

AIR Self-Determination Parent Scale

AIR Self-Determination Scale Educator Form

AIR Adapted Self-Determination Scale Student Form

Appendix G2
*See School Representative for templates for these forms

IEP Participation Measure

1. Did the student lead the IEP meeting? (Did the student start the meeting, introduce him/herself, act as main speaker?)
· Yes
· No
2. Please rate the level of overall participation (0=no participation to 5=full participation).

0——————–1——————–2——————–3——————–4——————–5

IEP Participation Measure

1. Did the student lead the IEP meeting? (Did the student start the meeting, introduce him/herself, act as main speaker?)
· Yes
· No
2. Please rate the level of overall participation (0=no participation to 5=full participation).

0——————–1——————–2——————–3——————–4——————–5

IEP Participation Measure

1. Did the student lead the IEP meeting? (Did the student start the meeting, introduce him/herself, act as main speaker?)
· Yes
· No
2. Please rate the level of overall participation (0=no participation to 5=full participation).

0——————–1——————–2——————–3——————–4——————–5
Appendix G3

Student-Agency Interaction Questionnaire

Example of Student-Agency Interaction Questionnaire
1) Have student or family member complete the following questionnaire indicating highest level of interaction with each community agency. (Example list is provided. Use agencies in your area)

(0)

No interaction

(1)

Phone contact

(2)

Meeting scheduled

(3)

On caseload

(4)

Receiving support

Arc

Autism Speaks (Autism Society)

Community College

Community Action Programs

County Health Department

Department of Health and Human Services

Employment Security Office

Habilitation Agencies

JobLink

Transportation agencies

School District

Social Security Office

Related Services Agencies

University Extension Office

Vocational Rehabilitation

Appendix G4

Pre-Post Interagency Collaboration Survey

Using the scale provided, please indicate the extent to which you currently interact with each agency.

Five Levels of Collaboration and Their Characteristics

No interaction (0)

· Not aware of organization
· No interaction that I know of

Networking (1)

· Aware of organization
· Loosely defined roles
· Little communication
· All decisions are made independently

Cooperation (2)

· Provide information to each other
· Somewhat defined roles
· Formal communication
· All decisions are made independently

Coordination (3)

· Share information and resources
· Defined roles
· Frequent communication
· Some shared decision making

Coalition (4)

· Share ideas
· Share resources
· Frequent and prioritized communication
· All members have a vote in decision making

Collaboration (5)

· Members belong to one system
· Frequent communication is characterized by mutual trust
· Consensus is reached on all decisions
1) List your community agencies and organizations (examples provided for starting point)

My organization

Not sure

No interaction

1

Networking

2

Cooperating

3

Coordinating

4

Coalition

5

Collaboration

Arc

Autism Speaks (Autism Society)

Chamber of Commerce

Community College

Community Action Programs

County Health Department

Department of Health and Human Services

Employment Security Office

Habilitation Agencies

JobLink

Transportation agencies

School District

School Board

Social Security Office

Related Services Agencies

University Extension Office

Vocational Rehabilitation

Appendix H: Additional Resources and Contact Information

Resources

CIRCLES Website:
http://circles.uncc.edu/
almost everything is available here

Need additional help? Contact us:

Name

Email

Phone

Dr. David Test

dwtest@uncc.edu

704-687-8853

Dr. Tiana Povenmire-Kirk

doctcpk@gmail.com

541-912-2678

Dr. Claudia Flowers

ClaudiaFlowers@uncc.edu

704-687-8862

Dr. Nellie Aspel

naspel@clevelandcountyschools.org

704-812-4090

Dr. Jane Everson

Dr. Karen Diegelmann

1

Collaborative Work in Action

Randa Sfeir

Walden University

Collaborative Work in Action

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) considers learners with disabilities in their action plan to ensure that learners access education effortlessly (Parsons, 2017). Special education services see the provision of groundwork to facilitate quality and quantity education for disabled students, particularly in public schools. Furthermore, a collaboration action plan will provide a setting for change in the education arena for students with disabilities. The ARD or IEP Committee has to address the students’ individualized education plan to include post-secondary education, vocational education, integrated employment, continued adult education, independent and community living. Postsecondary education is a primary transition goal for the majority of secondary school students with disabilities, and completion of postsecondary education meaningfully improves an individual’s chances of securing meaningful employment and other positive adult outcomes ( Talapatra, Roach, Varjas, Houchins, and Crimmins, 2018). IDEA (2004) requires schools to invite participating agencies to the ARD meetings and makes sure all services deemed necessary provided (Povenmire-Kirk, Diegelmann, Test, Aspel, and Everson, 2015).

A meeting scheduled to evaluate the model CIRCLES introduced previously in an informative session and currently implemented as a transition-planning service delivery model. It designed to lead schools in implementing interagency collaboration at three teams, including Community Team (CT), School Team (ST), and the IEP team, concentrating on student involvement and leadership throughout the process.

Summary of the Meeting

The school-level team is composed of secondary school administrators, two counselors, two special and general education representatives from the secondary schools, the special education director, diagnosticians, Texas Workforce representative, and the transition specialists. During the meeting segment with my team members, we were able to table several issues that tend to affect the students with disabilities post-secondary issues. One of the primary concerns was providing each student with access to an array of representatives from community agencies and writing the IEP with transition goals. The discussion was about the post-school outcomes in which the students with disabilities still consistently experience poor results in the area of education, employment, and independent living compared to their peers without disabilities (Povenmire-Kirk et al. ,2017). We were able to discuss the various strategies and measures which are needed to be put in place to address these problems. Providing employment opportunities to such individuals will help eliminate the issue of over-dependency on their family members and the entire state at large. Employment will help students to earn their respective incomes, and thus they can meet their day to day requirements. The CIRCLES program, therefore, aims at transforming the lives of students with disabilities right from high school to adult life. Various students have various strengths in different fields of operation; thus, it aims at nurturing the skills and competence that numerous students with disabilities have to prepare them for a greater tomorrow.

As team collaboration, we focused on the Individualized Transition Plan (ITP) as a program to foresee the success and employment connection to learners with special needs after the post-secondary education. Also, the team reviewed the CIRCLES Community Level and IEP Teams. To ensure collective and all-inclusive team collaboration, we implemented (Fullan, M., & Quinn, J, 2016) collaborative approach, in particularly –Learning Leadership. From the creation of cultural growth, we organized the learning leadership where form the meeting, we established that leaders, teachers, and conditional peers organization of the work collectively improve learners learning process. The team used the Ontario approach, which is based on collaborative inquiry that involves new ways of working together (Fullan and Quinn, 2016). The four essential steps were used to assess the program, plan the next level where we provide student access to various representatives from community agencies, write IEP including transition component, and make sure to get inputs from students and parents for the transition planning process. Then act step is when problems arise, the team need to find solutions. The last step is to reflect on the success of the transition services to young adults with disabilities.

Strength and Need of the program

The assessment from the team established that the CIRCLES program portrays far-reaching outcomes for the students. The advantage of CIRCLES is that it empowered students and their families. The program equipped them with information about the agencies. The agencies helped the students and families understand processes and procedures, including eligibility requirements and how to apply for services (Povenmire-Kirk et al. ,2017). The students will have frequent opportunity to exhibit self-determination skills at school and their participation in their IEP meetings. A strength of the program is networking and collaboration between agencies and school personnel, discussing how agencies could work together to assist students, and share agency information about available community services.

The needs for the program are awareness between agencies and school staff and preparing students and families for the CIRCLES and transition meetings. They include the level of participation and agency assessment. There was no signature for the applicant in the segment on participation steps, and there was no amount of attendance. Guardians and parents did not attend most of the meetings.

Ongoing Program Evaluation

The following steps will be taken to ensure continuity in program evaluation.

· Check Transition goals and objectives for each student and follow up after the transition.

· Administrative support for transition

· Incorporating the use of a variety of funding sources

· Conducting agency meetings with both the family and the students

· Ensure proper training of all stakeholders on CIRCLES, including the families and students.

Environmental and Program Data

To ensure effective sharing of both the program and environment data with the pertinent stakeholders, we need to formulate a system that provides an update to each stakeholder in case of an amendment to the school and district policies.

From the complete assessment of the program, data channel to pertinent stakeholders is vital; thus, continuity in the evaluation was a matter of concern to the team during the meeting. Sharing of data is one fundamental aspect of the program that the team collaboratively agreed upon during the session. According to (Fullan, M., & Quinn, J, 2016), clarity of strategy is a cornerstone in the sharing of information with the pertinent stakeholders. Nevertheless, there is a need to ensure that various meetings will be carried out about the system update (Fullan, 2016). This will provide aid in ensuring that all the stakeholders in the organization are well aware of the current status of the program and environmental data. Updating pertinent stakeholders will help in ensuring that the formulation process, amendment process, and the implementation process experiences a smooth workflow because there will be effective coordination among these stakeholders.

Demonstrating school practices that positively impact areas of employment and postsecondary education would provide valuable information for planning programs for students with disabilities. The team members concluded that CIRCLES would continue to help the students with disabilities have a more significant opportunity to practice and demonstrate self-determination skills and be more involved in their transition meetings.

References

Fullan, M. (2016). Professional culture and educational change. School Psychology Review,

25(4), 496-500.

Fullan, M. (2017). Leading in a culture of change. John Wiley & Sons.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.

(2004).

Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., Pullen, P. C., & Badar, J. (2018). Special education: What it is

And why we need it. Routledge

Parsons S. (2017). Three Essays on Special Education Placement in Early Childhood and K-12

Education. Retrieved from

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/62333/research ?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Povenmire-Kirk, T. Diegelmann, K.M., Test, D.W., Aspel, N., and Everson, J.M. (2015).

CIRCLES: An

Implementation

Guide. Retrieved from

https://circles.uncc.edu/

Povenmire-Kirka, T., Diegelmanna, K., Crumps, K., Schnorr, C., Testa, D., Flowers, C. and

Aspela, A. (2017). Implementing CIRCLES: A new model for interagency collaboration in

transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 42, 51–65

DOI:10.3233/JVR-140723

Talapatra, D., Roach, T., Varjas, K., Houchins, D., and Crimmins, D. (2018). Transition services

For students with intellectual disabilities: School psychologists’perceptions. Psychology in

the Schools, 56, 56-78.

Appendix C

Action Plan Title Collaboration between schools and agencies
Program Goal · The goal is to achieve writing IEP including Transition Component · Provides student access to various representatives from community agencies · Effectively utilized the outcomes to offer assistance and their parents to develop a positive future.
Implementation	Evaluation-Updates
Action Steps to Complete	When	When By Whom	Resources: What Is Needed for This to Happen?	Progress Notes
Follow student IEP /transition goals and objectives.	Every 4 weeks/ after implementation	IEP team	Questionnaires forms /CIRCLES
administrative support for transition	After the follow-up	School Adminstrators/Transition specialist	Identify community resources Develop & update interagency service agreements Coordinate staff development
using a variety of funding sources,	During the implementation phase	Stakeholders	Having different funding sources
agency meetings with students and families,	Before the introduction of the program	Various agency representatives	A selected area where all the parties can coverage /use List of community agencies
training students and families plus school staff on CIRCLES	During the implementation process	Trainers from the agency	Training appliances /use

Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 49 (2018) 45–57
DOI:10.3233/JVR-180953
IOS Press

45

CIRCLES: Building an interagency network
for transition planning

Tiana C. Povenmire-Kirka , David W. Testa,∗, Claudia P. Flowersa , Karen M. Diegelmanna ,
Kimberly Bunch-Crumpa , Amy Kemp-Inmana and Crystalyn I. Goodnightb
a University of North Carolina Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA
bUniversity of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA

Revised/Accepted August 2017

Abstract.
BACKGROUND: Best practices in transition planning include interagency collaboration during the planning process. While
IDEA 2004 requires interagency collaboration in the IEP process, getting all the right people to the table can be difficult.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate stakeholder perceptions of interagency collaboration resulting from Communicating Intera-
gency Relationships and Collaborative Linkages for Exceptional Students (CIRCLES).
METHODS: Using qualitative and quantitative methodologies, we explored stakeholders’ interagency collaboration expe-
riences with CIRCLES.
RESULTS: Data indicated high levels of interagency collaboration and satisfaction from students, parents, teachers, and
agency personnel.
CONCLUSIONS: CIRCLES may help transition personnel overcome many of the barriers to successful interagency
collaboration.

Keywords: Transition, transition planning, youth with disabilities, interagency collaboration

1. Introduction

A successful transition to post-school education,
employment, community engagement, and indepen-
dent living are goals of most high school students.
For many students, high school has become a time
of identifying goals and networking with friends
and supports to make those goals a reality whether
they involve preparing for postsecondary education,
choosing a career, or making decisions about where
they want to live. For students with disabilities, this
process can be difficult without the help of school
personnel and adult service providers (Kohler, 1996).

∗Address for correspondence: Dr. David Test, Department of
Special Education and Child Development, University of North
Carolina Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC
28223, USA. Tel.: +1 704 687 8853; Fax: +1 704 687 1625;
E-mail: dwtest@uncc.edu.

Federal laws including the Individuals with Disabili-
ties Act (IDEA, 2004) and the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act (WIOA, 2015) stipulate guide-
lines for education systems and adult service agencies
in assisting youth with disabilities in this transition
process. IDEA (2004) mandates that each student
with disabilities have a transition component in
their Individual Education Program (IEP), based on
their individual interests, strengths, and needs, in
place by their 16th birthday. IDEA (2004) further
mandates that the transition component must con-
tain a coordinated set of outcome-related activities
which will guide the student through the transition
from high school to adult life. WIOA (2015) uses
this same terminology to define transition services
and to address service providers who work with
these students to connect them with opportunities
for postsecondary education and employment. These
coordinated services imply that these two systems

1052-2263/18/$35.00 © 2018 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved

mailto:dwtest@uncc.edu

46 T.C. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Building an interagency network for transition planning

work together to build a smooth transition. Mak-
ing and maintaining these connections across the
education system/adult service providers divide is
fundamental to ensuring positive post-school out-
comes for students with disabilities.

Kohler, Gothberg, Fowler, and Coyle (2016) in the
Taxonomy for Transition Programming 2.0 (Taxon-
omy), categorized this connectivity and intention of
educators and adult service providers (e.g., vocational
rehabilitation counselors, community rehabilitation
agencies, and providers of independent living) in
working together to assist in the successful transi-
tion to adult life for students with disabilities as
Interagency Collaboration. Within interagency col-
laboration, various stakeholders including parents
and students work together with transition teach-
ers and adult services providers to problem-solve
to develop student-centered transition activities to
be implemented through the student’s IEP (Webb,
Repetto, Seabrook-Blackmore, Pattersons, & Alder-
fer, 2014). Interagency Collaboration is pivotal
for increasing post-school outcomes for students
with disabilities (Noonan, Morningstar, & Gaumer
Erickson, 2008). In a systematic review of correla-
tional literature to identify in-school predictors of
post-school outcomes, Test, Mazzotti, et al. (2009)
identified interagency collaboration as a predictor of
positive post-school outcomes.

Even with guidelines (Kohler et al., 2016; Noo-
nan et al., 2008), and mandates (IDEA, 2004; WIOA,
2015), researchers have found building collabora-
tion across agencies is often difficult as educational
systems and adult service agencies may work with
different mindsets, such as specialized definitions and
policies for collaboration and assisting students with
disabilities in achieving their transition goals (Oertle,
Plotner, & Trach, 2013). For example, in a secondary
analysis of data from the National Longitudinal Tran-
sition Study-2 (NLTS2), vocational rehabilitation
(VR) counselors were found to have very little par-
ticipation in transition planning for students with
intellectual disability, as well as other disabilities
(Grigal, Hart, & Migliore, 2011). On one hand, transi-
tion teachers may find themselves overwhelmed with
the tasks of transition planning, wondering why the
vocational rehabilitation counselors are not partici-
pating, while on the other hand, VR counselors may
be waiting in the wings to be invited to the transition
planning table (Trach, 2012).

Unfortunately, research on effective strategies for
interagency collaboration has been sparse (Landmark
& Zhang, 2010; Oertle et al., 2013). In fact, Test,

Fowler, et al. (2009) found no evidence-based prac-
tices in the category of interagency collaboration in a
review of secondary transition literature. This lack
of research has been recognized by others. First,
in a position paper of the Council of Exceptional
Children Division of Career Development and Tran-
sition (DCDT), Mazzotti, Rowe, Cameto, Test, and
Morningstar (2013) called for researchers to focus
on interagency collaboration and identify evidence-
based practices in this area. More recently, Haber
et al. (2016) conducted a second meta-analysis of
in-school secondary transition predictors and found
interagency collaboration was a predictor of postsec-
ondary education and, even though there were few
studies investigating the topic, interagency collabo-
ration showed strong effects, suggesting the need for
effective strategies for promoting interagency collab-
oration. To date, current research has focused on three
areas (a) potential barriers to successful collabora-
tion, (b) perceptions of levels of collaboration, and
(c) successful models of interagency collaboration.

1.1. Barriers to collaboration

Reisen, Morgan, Schiltz, and Kupferman (2014)
conducted a Delphi study to investigate possible bar-
riers of transitioning from school to work for youth
and young adults with disabilities. Forty-six transi-
tion professionals (i.e., special educators, vocational
rehabilitation counselors, community rehabilitation
providers) across one state, identified and rated bar-
riers of school to work in 11 domains including
interagency collaboration. Within this category, lack
of continued supports after high school and lack of
knowledge of available supports ranked as having
the highest impact on youth and young adults with
disabilities.

Next, Meadows, Davies, and Beamish (2014)
conducted a confirmatory analysis of Beamish,
Meadows, and Davies (2012) data to ascertain special
educators’ level of locus of control over commonly
used interagency collaboration practices. Comparing
scores from rating scales on implementation levels of
15 interagency collaboration practices (Meadows et
al.) and a survey inquiring on teachers’ perceptions
of locus of control for each of the practices, results
indicated a positive correlation between teacher’s
perception of locus of control (i.e., school-based v.
regional/systemic) and level of implementation of the
practice.

T.C. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Building an interagency network for transition planning 47

1.1.1. Perceptions of levels of collaboration
To understand perceptions of interagency collabo-

ration among VR counselors and transition teachers,
Taylor, Morgan, and Callow-Heusser (2016) uti-
lized two surveys to determine level of collaboration
and satisfaction with collaboration practices. This
four-state study found many of the responses by
VR counselors and transition teachers were some-
what aligned, reporting low levels of collaboration
in several areas, such as teachers providing student
information to VR counselors, teachers inviting VR
counselors to IEP meetings, and VR counselors par-
ticipating in the IEP meetings. One area of responses
showed a large difference across participants. VR
counselors regarded themselves as an essential part
of the transition planning process for students with
disabilities, while transition teachers indicated VR
counselors played much less of a role.

1.2. Successful models of interagency
collaboration

Other research has examined what is working
in interagency collaboration. For example, Noo-
nan, Gaumer Erickson, and Morningstar (2013)
investigated the level of high-quality interagency col-
laboration of 73 members of community transition
teams who received training and support for inter-
agency collaboration for one year. Members were
assessed before and after the first year using the
Transition Collaboration Survey which measured 11
essential components of interagency collaboration
(Noonan, et al., 2008). The 11 key strategies identi-
fied including (a) flexible scheduling and staffing, (b)
follow-up after transition, (c) administrative support
for transition, (d) using a variety of funding sources,
(e) state-supported technical assistance, (f) ability to
build relationships, (g) agency meetings with students
and families, (h) training student and families, (i) joint
training of staff, and (j) meeting with agency staff
and transition councils. Results revealed school staff
had an increase in all 11 components of high-quality
interagency collaboration, while agency staff had
increases in most of the components except adminis-
trative support for transition and training time.

In another study using the Levels of Collaboration
Scale (Frey, Lohmeier, Lee, & Tollefson, 2006) and
social network analysis, Noonan, Erickson, McCall,
Frey, and Zheng (2014) examined changes in collab-
oration among members of a state-level interagency
education team over a three-year period. Directors
of state-level agencies who worked with youth and

adults with disabilities, rated their own level of col-
laboration with the group, as well as their perception
of other agencies’ level of collaboration. In this study,
participants were given results of the analysis each
year and had the opportunity to generate and discuss
strategies for improving the collaboration, resulting
in increased levels of collaboration from networking
to cooperation over the three-year period.

Additionally, Povenmire-Kirk et al. (2015) con-
ducted focus groups with school district personnel
and adult service providers to investigate the
successes and challenges from the first-year imple-
mentation of a three-tiered model of interagency
collaboration. Stakeholders including school district
and agency personnel who were involved in plan-
ning or participating in Communicating Interagency
Relationships and Collaborative Linkages for Excep-
tional Students (CIRCLES) were asked to reflect
on the first year of implementation in their dis-
tricts. Themes for successes included increased levels
of networking and collaboration among agency and
school participants, improved communication about
services across stakeholders, and the esoteric gratifi-
cation of helping students develop self-advocacy and
self-determination by teaching them how to lead their
own School Level Team (SLT) meetings.

This review of literature, while offering essen-
tial characteristics (Lee & Carter, 2012, Noonan
et al., 2008) of quality interagency collaboration,
also presented ongoing challenges and suggestions
for improvement (Lee & Carter, 2012; Noonan
et al., 2012; Reisen et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2016).
One research-based model that schools can use to
effectively implement interagency collaboration is
CIRCLES. The CIRCLES model of interagency col-
laboration, which has been successfully implemented
for four years in 12 school districts, addressed many
of these challenges and suggestions. In addition, in a
randomized control trial investigation of the efficacy
of the CIRCLES model, Flowers, Test, Povenmire-
Kirk, Diegelmann, Bunch-Crump, and Kemp-Inman
(2018), found students who went through CIRCLES
experienced higher levels of self-determination and
participation in their IEP meetings.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to use
mixed methods (i.e., qualitative and quantitative)
to investigate the full implementation of the CIR-
CLES model of interagency collaboration. Using
grounded theory method, focus groups were con-
ducted to collect data on the perspectives of four
different stakeholder groups (i.e., students, parents,
teachers, agency personnel) to determine success

48 T.C. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Building an interagency network for transition planning

and challenges throughout implementation of CIR-
CLES. Quantitative data were also gathered using
surveys to examine different stakeholders’ perception
of involvement in CIRCLES. The following research
questions were addressed:

1. What are CIRCLES students’ perception of
their preparedness, involvement in planning and
setting goals for post-secondary education, job,
and living in the community?

2. Are parents involved in planning and preparing
their child for post-secondary education, job,
and living in the community?

3. What are interagency members’ perception of
collaboration among schools and other agen-
cies?

2. Method

2.1. Description of CIRCLES service delivery
model

CIRCLES involves three levels of interagency col-
laboration including Community Level Team, School
Level Team, and IEP Team. While each team has
a specific purpose, they work together to address
transition planning needs and issues of individual
students with disabilities to improve both in-school
and post-school outcomes of students with disabil-
ities (Aspel, Bettis, Quinn, Test, & Wood, 1999;
Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2015). CIRCLES targets stu-
dents with disabilities who may need support from
multiple adult service providers to experience suc-
cessful post-school outcomes. For example, students
with a mild learning disability who have family issues
including poverty, homelessness, or high-risk parents
could benefit from services available through CIR-
CLES team members. On the other hand, similar
students who have a strong family system of support,
are college bound, and have no other specific needs
may not benefit from the interagency team involve-
ment that is the hallmark of CIRCLES. In summary,
CIRCLES allows agencies to provide support ser-
vices directly to students and families who need
involvement from multiple adult service providers
using three levels of teaming.

2.1.1. Community Level Team
The Community Level Team (CLT) is comprised of

administrators and supervisors of every agency able
to provide support for transition from high school to

adult life. This team could include Vocational Reha-
bilitation, Department of Social Services, Health
Department, The Arc, Easter Seals, Autism Society,
residential service providers, and any other local ser-
vice providers. The CLT is organized and convened
by district-level school staff (e.g., special education
director, program coordinator, transition specialist)
to address community-level needs for services. The
CLT meets two to four times per year to identify gaps
and overlaps in services, and work together to change
policy and practice to better serve youth with disabil-
ities. As the CLT works to identify and address areas
of need in their community, this can result in changes
in policies, services, budget allocations, or commu-
nity outreach and education. One of the key roles for
CLT members is to appoint a direct service represen-
tative from their agency to serve on their School Level
Team (SLT). As such, administrative-level buy-in is
vital to success of CIRCLES.

2.1.2. School Level Team
The School Level Team (SLT) is what makes

CIRCLES different than other models that uti-
lize interagency transition teams; while interagency
community-level transition teams exist, the SLT,
brings adult agency representatives together to meet
directly with students and their families. The SLT
is comprised of direct service providers (e.g., case
managers, counselors, care coordinators, etc.) from
each agency represented on the CLT; these are adult
service professionals special educators might tradi-
tionally invite to attend IEPs for students in need in
the more traditional model. These are also represen-
tatives who, because of the size of their catchment
area, are often unable to attend IEP meetings of every
student in need. Instead of inviting these representa-
tives to attend every IEP meeting, district-level school
staff responsible for convening CIRCLES meetings
invite them to attend one full-day meeting a month
during the school year, in which they see multi-
ple students and address post-school goals in areas
of transition, specifically, postsecondary education,
employment, and independent living. Rather than
spending time calling agency members to invite them
to IEP meetings, in the CIRCLES model, special edu-
cators prepare their students individually to present
information about themselves, including their post-
secondary goals and needs to SLT members. Students
use technology (e.g., PowerPoint, Voki, Wobook,
GoAnimate) to describe their strengths, areas of need,
and post-school goals. Student presentations typi-
cally take three to eight minutes. For the remaining

T.C. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Building an interagency network for transition planning 49

time allotted (20 – 40 minutes per student), members
of the SLT talk with the student, his or her family,
special educators, and one another to determine how
best to deliver transition services to each student. In
addition to giving each student, parent, and special
educators a personal contact to associate with each
agency, the SLT format also allows time for appoint-
ments to be made and questions to be answered by
agency members. Families can discuss any needs they
may have as a unit (e.g., poverty, homelessness, trans-
portation, food insecurity, guardianship assistance,
etc.). Agencies negotiate with one another and the
student and family to create the most comprehensive
plan to meet each student’s specific needs. After each
student is seen, agency members prepare to hear the
next student presentation during a 5–10 minute break,
and then start the process over for each new student.
SLTs typically see between six and 10 students per
meeting day. To ensure follow-through of the service
plans developed at these meetings, and because the
SLT’s main purpose is to develop transition activ-
ities and services for the student with a disability,
the minutes of each SLT meeting are distributed to
every member of the SLT, the IEP team via the spe-
cial education teacher, the student, and his or her
parents.

2.1.3. IEP team
The IEP team is the final level in the CIRCLES

multi-level approach. After the SLT meeting, spe-
cial education teachers take the minutes and decisions
made at the SLT meeting back to their IEP meeting
and write transition components based on the ser-
vices agreed upon at the SLT. This process enables
the IEP team to write other components of the IEP
with end goals of each student in mind and plan
for transition activities and supports that exist and
are available to each student. Because the district-
level school staff are responsible for convening both
CLT and SLT meetings, time special education teach-
ers typically spend inviting folks to IEP meetings
is freed up for preparing students for SLT and IEP
meetings. Student assessments and interviews that go
into developing their presentations to the SLT are all
part of what should be standard operating procedures
for preparing for transition components of any IEP
meeting. The only activity that may not be part of
standard procedures is the training of the technol-
ogy tools to help students present. However, many
districts require students to present a portfolio their
senior year, and use the students’ SLT presentations
as both a practice activity and a starting point for

this larger portfolio presentation. In some schools,
teachers used technology their students utilize as part
of CIRCLES as “technology instruction” needed to
meet criteria associated with graduation. Figure 1
illustrates the relationships of these teams to one
another, the student, and the community.

2.2. Focus groups

2.2.1. Setting
We conducted focus groups at regular meetings

of CLT and SLT team members for agency person-
nel, and at high schools for parents, students, and
teachers. Although we offered focus groups to each
district, six of the 12 districts participated in all four
focus groups, giving us a total of 24 focus groups
(i.e., 4 = agency personnel, 4 = parents, 4 = students,
4 = teachers). The six districts that participated in
focus groups represented a range of demographics at
district and school level. One district was classified as
urban, two as suburban, and three as rural. Of the six
schools which participated in focus groups within the
districts, three schools had enrollment greater than
1000 students and five schools had more than 50%
free/reduced price lunch. Finally, during the grant,
two schools had school staff turnover, but there was
no agency staff turnover. District reasons for not par-
ticipating in focus groups included scheduling issues
and District Level Team leadership changes.

2.2.2. Participants
Each of the six districts held four focus groups

that included a total of 175 participants. Focus groups
varied from 3 to 18 participants. Overall, 62 district
and agency personnel, 40 teachers, 31 parents, and
42 students participated. We did not collect individ-
ual demographic information at these focus groups
as the unit of interest was the district’s experience of
CIRCLES, not the individual.

2.2.3. Instruments
We used IRB approved focus group questions

developed to maximize the use of focus groups versus
individual interviews (Morgan, 1996). We devel-
oped open ended, but guiding questions, designed to
maximize conversation between the members of the
various groups. Instruments used for each group are
available from the first author.

2.2.4. Data collection
Each separate focus group was facilitated by a

member of the CIRCLES project staff trained in

50 T.C. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Building an interagency network for transition planning

Fig. 1. CIRCLES.

probing questions to glean more information in
response to the questions on our focus group pro-
tocols. All focus groups were audio-recorded and
transcribed by a professional transcriptionist.

2.2.5. Data analysis
Two members of CIRCLES project staff coded

transcripts of each focus group separately, begin-
ning with a general list of themes related to our
questions, regarding supports, barriers, and needs
moving forward. During the coding process, they
used grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1968) and
allowed themes to emerge from the data, creating
new codes as these themes emerged. After coding
each transcript once, each coder returned with the
new list of themes generated by the data and coded
a second time. After all coding was complete, the
coders met to review their codes and generated con-
sensus. These codes were entered into N-Vivo and
code reports were developed. Coders then returned to
the code reports and wrote summaries of our findings,
again, reaching consensus. Focus group data were
gathered from participants from six districts for each

focus group category providing triangulation and
confidence in trustworthiness and credibility of the
data.

2.3. Student, parent, and interagency surveys

2.3.1. Participants
Surveys were administered to students and parents

who participated in CIRCLES and agency members
who attended the SLT or CLT meetings. There were
143 students, 72 parents, and 52 interagency members
who completed the surveys. All participants were
asked to complete the survey online at the end of the
school year. All 12 school districts were represented
in the samples. The return rate was 46% for the stu-
dent survey, 23% for the parent survey, and 88% for
interagency survey.

2.3.2. Instruments
Three surveys were administered to three stake-

holder groups, students, parents, and participating
interagency teams. Student and parent surveys were
administered at the end of the year after participating

T.C. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Building an interagency network for transition planning 51

Table 1
Student Perception of Preparedness

Item Agree

M %

1. I am prepared for school (e.g., college, university, training) after high school. 2.58 64
2. I am prepared for a job after high school. 2.72 78
3. The school was helpful in preparing me for school (e.g., college, university, training) after high school. 2.87 84
4. The school was helpful in preparing me for a job after high school. 2.80 82
5. The school was helpful in preparing me for living in the community after high school. 2.70 66
6. I know what agencies/adult service providers will help me after high school (vocational rehab, social security,

department of social services, etc.).
2.62 70

7. I have been involved in preparing myself for school (college/university) after high school. 2.64 74
8. I have been involved in preparing myself for a job after high school. 2.78 83
9. I have been involved in preparing myself for living in the community after high school. 2.57 71
10. I have been involved in preparing goals for my future. 2.92 91

Table 2
Parent Perception of Student Preparedness

Item Agree/Strongly
Agree

M %

1. I understand the process of preparing my child for life after high school. 3.54 98%
2. I have had an active role in the process of preparing my child for life after high school. 3.66 97%
3. I communicate on a regular basis with school personnel on the process of preparing my child for life after high school. 3.36 92%
4. I understand my child’s needs and goals. 3.64 100%
5. The school is doing a good job preparing my child for employment after high school. 3.60 96%
6. The school is doing a good job preparing my child to live in the community after high school. 3.54 95%
7. The school is doing a good job preparing my child for education after high school. 3.62 96%

in CIRCLES and examined the perceptions of the
students’ preparedness to transition out of high
school. The survey to interagency teams examined
the extent of the collaboration across the different
agencies.

The student survey had 10 items that asked students
to rate using a 3-point scale (1 = disagree, 2 = not sure,
& 3 = agree) their perception of preparedness (see
Table 1 for the items). Parents responded to seven
items, using a 4-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree,
2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, & 4 = Strongly Agree), about
their perception of their child’s preparedness (see
Table 2). The agency member survey included 27
items asking respondents to rate (a) the extent their
transition collaborative team coordinated, imple-
mented, or collaborated on a series of transition
activities and (b) rate their organizations collab-
oration with other organizations (see Table 3 for
items).

2.3.3. Data analyses
Descriptive statistics are used to summarize all

participants’ responses. Specifically, means and per-
centages were used to summarize student and parent
survey results. For the agency members’ survey,

frequencies and percentages were reported for each
item.

3. Results

3.1. Focus groups

After analysis, we found themes discussed by focus
group participants fit into one of three categories (a)
Successes and Supports, (b) Challenges and Barriers,
and (c) Needs Moving Forward.

3.1.1. Successes and supports
Most agencies agreed that the CIRCLES process

was successful in several areas, including promoting
collaborative relationships that allowed community
agency members and school-level personnel to bet-
ter understand what each agency can offer students
and can better point families in the right direction for
services. The collaborative nature of CIRCLES also
motived team members, as they were able to hear
about successes of students and families getting the
services they need as a result of their efforts – they
felt that they had made a difference. Some aspects of

52 T.C. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Building an interagency network for transition planning

Table 3
Interagency Collaboration Ratings

To what extent does your transition Very Small Somewhat Great Very
collaborative team: Small Great

1. Coordinates requests for and dissemination of information (e.g., to parents,
employers)

4% 6% 21% 47% 23%

2. Reduces systematic barriers to collaboration 4% 8% 13% 62% 13%
3. Implements collaborative funding of transition services 6% 12% 37% 29% 16%
4. Implements collaborative staffing of transition services 8% 4% 21% 50% 17%
5. Collaborates in the development and use of assessment data 8% 13% 17% 54% 8%
6. Coordinates and shares delivery of transition-related services 2% 4% 12% 58% 25%
7. Disseminates agency and service delivery systems information among

cooperating agencies
0% 0% 17% 52% 31%

8. Reflects collaborative program planning and development, including
employer involvement

2% 12% 29% 47% 10%

9. Reflects collaborative consultation between special, “regular,” and
vocational educators

10% 13% 25% 33% 19%

10. Reflects collaboration between post-secondary education institutions and
the school district

4% 4% 19% 45% 28%

What best describes the extent of your organization’s general collaboration:
11. Partner organizations take your organization’s opinions seriously when

decisions are made about the collaboration.
0% 0% 6% 58% 36%

12. Your organization brainstorms with partner organizations to develop
solutions to mission-related problems facing the collaboration.

0% 0% 9% 62% 28%

13. You, as a representative of your organization in the collaboration,
understand your organization’s roles and responsibilities as a member of
the collaboration.

0% 0% 36% 51% 43%

14. Partner organization meetings accomplish what is necessary for the
collaboration to function well.

0% 2% 15% 53% 30%

15. Partner organizations (including your organization) agree about the goals
of the collaboration.

0% 2% 11% 45% 42%

16. Your organization’s tasks in the collaboration are well coordinated with
those of partner organizations.

8% 4% 19% 46% 23%

17. The collaboration hinders your organization from meeting its own
organizational mission.

68% 17% 2% 9% 4%

18. Your organization’s independence is affected by having to work with
partner organizations on activities related to the collaboration.

64% 17% 8% 9% 2%

19. You, as the representative of your organization, feel pulled between trying
to meet both your organization’s and the collaboration’s expectations.

55% 17% 9% 11% 8%

20. Partner organizations (including your organization) have combined and
used each other’s resources so all partners benefit from collaborating.

0% 4% 28% 42% 26%

21. Your organization shares information with partner organizations that will
strengthen their operations and programs.

0% 0% 11% 57% 32%

22. You feel what your organization brings to the collaboration is appreciated
and respected by partner organizations.

0% 0% 9% 45% 45%

23. Your organization achieves its own goals better working with partner
organizations than working alone.

0% 0% 10% 38% 52%

24. Partner organizations (including your organization) work through
differences to arrive at win-win solutions.

0% 0% 8% 55% 38%

25. The people who represent partner organizations in the collaboration are
trustworthy.

0% 0% 2% 40% 58%

26. My organization can count on each partner organization to meets its
obligations to the collaboration.

0% 0% 15% 49% 36%

27. Your organization feels it worthwhile to stay and work with partner
organizations rather than leave the collaboration.

0% 0% 4% 32% 64%

CIRCLES seemed to be critical for success, including
clearly assigning responsibilities for follow-up and
providing reminders to each person involved, provid-
ing complete student profile sheets to agencies ahead
of time, and having teachers present in meetings to
help guide and support students as they presented.

Collaborative relationships. Meeting with other com-
munity agencies allowed all team members to better
understand what each one can offer students and
can better point families in the right direction for
services. Collaboration also has improved commu-
nication between the different agencies.

T.C. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Building an interagency network for transition planning 53

“Through collaboration in CIRCLES meetings,
I learned what other agencies are out there and
what they do; it’s incredibly beneficial.” – Agency
Member

“ . . . I’ve learned from everybody around the
table and I’m able to help families better, point
them in directions.” – Special Education Teacher

“I like getting out with and networking with other
team members and seeing what these kids are
doing.” – Agency Member

When team members heard success stories,
“ . . . You feel like you’re making a difference.” –
Agency Member

The collaborative nature of CIRCLES meetings
was something enjoyed by agency members, teach-
ers, and families, alike.

“I really enjoyed having the teacher in there while
the student was presenting. It seems to make the
student a lot more comfortable.” – Parent

Developing systems for follow-up. One team member
at the SLT meetings wrote down what each student,
agency, and teacher had agreed to do and gave each
party a copy. Email reminders also helped for one
district.
Provide adequate student information in SLT. Giv-
ing the agencies student profile sheets ahead of time
was crucial for agencies to best know what would
be a good fit for each student, and to have some
background on the students.

“It’s just helpful to have a little background [from
the teacher] before we’re in front of the students.”
– Agency Member

“And the student profile sheets, having those
ahead of time helped you, as well, know the
student’s capabilities because some present dif-
ferently than their ability indicates or their IQ
indicates.” – Agency Member

3.1.2. Challenges and barriers
Despite the successes reported throughout the

CIRCLES process, team members perceived several
challenges and barriers that may need to be addressed
to produce optimal student outcomes. Primarily, these
challenges and barriers can be described in three
areas: understanding the process, getting everyone to
the table, and follow-up.
Understanding the process. During initial training,
some confusion occurred because team members

were not sure about many of the details of the process.
It sometimes was difficult for the transition team to
decide how to prioritize students, whether based on
age or need.

“So the training, you can sit in and you can listen
to what all it entails but you’re really not going to
understand it very well until you actually come
and sit down with the students and hear their
presentations.” – Transition Educator

“I think the training was not as clear because I
didn’t totally understand the difference between
the community level and the school level.” –
Agency Member

“So if I’m a mom walking in with my child I kind
of want to know what I’m walking into, and I’ve
seen looks of surprise . . . It’s a little bit intimi-
dating. I think the comfort level would be better
if they knew what to expect.” – Special Education
Teacher

Getting everyone to the table. When implementing
the CIRCLES process, it was sometimes challenging
to get parents and agencies to the SLT and CLT meet-
ings due to scheduling, agencies not responding to
meeting invitations, and parents feeling intimidated
to meet with a room full of professionals. Parental
participation in IEP meetings and other school-based
meetings has been documented to lag as students
get older; CIRCLES meetings are no exception. It
was challenging to get families to attend SLT meet-
ings, possibly because the situation is intimidating
for them, and often available meeting places were
not conducive to setting up an inclusive environment
(e.g., one big table).

“One of the hardest things to do when you set
up these meetings each month is to get participa-
tion from family members.” – Special Education
Teacher

Getting everyone together at one time is chal-
lenging due to agencies not responding and also
remembering to invite the right people.

“I guess the other part would be able to get
everybody together at one time, is always the
challenge.” – District Transition Specialist

Follow-up: Several factors also seemed to affect
follow-up on contacts after SLT meetings, includ-
ing a lack of clearly defined responsibility allocation
between parents and agencies, as well as privacy
concerns that prevented agencies from initiating the

54 T.C. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Building an interagency network for transition planning

follow-up contact with parents. When agencies pro-
vided contact information and waited for families to
follow up, often families did not contact agencies
to follow through on plans made at the SLT. Who
is responsible for follow-up was not clearly defined
during the meetings. The information parents receive
also can be overwhelming, so it was difficult for them
to know where to start.

Furthermore, the outcomes from SLT meetings did
not always get transferred to the IEP’s transition plan.

“We give them our information and our business
cards and are kind of waiting for them to get in
contact with us, so I think that contact piece is
really the most difficult part.”- Agency Member

3.1.3. Needs moving forward
Several suggestions for meeting needs going for-

ward emerged that may help guide school districts in
implementing CIRCLES with optimal student out-
comes. These included establish responsibility for
follow-up, increase parental awareness and partic-
ipation, improve agency participation with careful
planning by individual student needs, ongoing train-
ing for teachers, and report successes and actions of
SLT back to CLT.
Responsibility for follow-up. First, it is critical to
clearly define who is responsible for making contact
for follow up, parents or agencies, and to obtain any
necessary parent permissions for agency follow-up.

“It’s sort of your pat on the back and your motiva-
tion when you hear that oh, they really did follow
through with that and they really are already con-
nected with VR.” – Special Education Teacher

Increase parental awareness. Second, parental
awareness and understanding of the CIRCLES pro-
cess should be promoted, possibly through brochures
given during IEP transition discussions, parent train-
ings and/or discussions about the process, formal
parent invitations to SLT meetings, and posting
resources on the school website. Provide parents with
information/brochures ahead of time, and provide
parents with some type of training to help them under-
stand the CIRCLES process. Also, increase parent
familiarity with CIRCLES by mentioning it or dis-
cussing it to some extent at every parent meeting,
and emphasize CIRCLES during the IEP meeting
when discussing transition. Send formal invitations
to parents about their child’s SLT meeting. Schools
could add a prominent link with CIRCLES resources
to their websites.

“If you meet with your freshman parents that
would be a good time to start talking with them.”
– Transition Specialist

“Possibly with training and them understanding
the benefit for their child would result in more of
them participating.” – Special Education Director

Improve agency involvement with careful planning.
Third, consider improving agency involvement by
identifying ahead of time those agencies that might
most support a particular student, and provide agen-
cies with student profiles prior to the SLT meetings
so the agencies can better prepare to meet their
needs.

“It creates buy in and yeah I would think that
it would create more participation.” – Agency
Member

Ongoing training for teachers. Fourth, training
should be ongoing as new teachers and agencies join
the CIRCLES process. Continue training new teach-
ers about CIRCLES, providing an overall perspective
of the program and each team level’s responsibil-
ity, and how to best prepare students for the SLT
meeting. Additionally, if teachers knew at the begin-
ning of the year all the dates for the meetings, they
could plan accordingly with their students. Set meet-
ing dates ahead of time, and provide reminders and
follow-up contact to agency members who miss a
meeting.
Report successes and actions of SLT to CLT. Finally,
a reliable system should be developed to report back
to the CLT team any decisions made at the SLT to
maintain motivation and effective decision-making at
the CLT level. These could include presenting a brief
stakeholder evaluation or survey of the SLT process,
SLT meeting notes, or even invite a student to present
at the CLT on occasion.

“It would be motivating for the CLT members to
hear success stories of students who connected
with agencies and continued this relationship
after the SLT. A brief evaluation of the SLT pro-
cess could be taken back to the CLT meeting, as
well as parent input and notes from the SLT meet-
ing. Perhaps a student could present at the CLT
meeting on occasion.” – Agency Director (CLT
member)

T.C. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Building an interagency network for transition planning 55

3.2. Student, parent, and interagency surveys
results

3.2.1. Student perception of preparedness
The items, means, and percentage of students who

agreed with each item (1 = disagree; 2 = not sure;
3 = agree) are reported in Table 1. All means were
above 2.5, and the percentages of students who agreed
ranged from 64% (I am prepared for school (e.g., col-
lege, university, training) after high school to 91% (I
have been involved in preparing goals for my future).

3.2.2. Parent perception of child’s preparedness
Table 2 displays the means and percentage

of parents who agreed or strongly agreed with
the items (1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree,
3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree). All means were at or
above 3.36, with most parents agreeing or strongly
agreeing with statements, ranging from 92% (I com-
municate on a regular basis with school personnel on
the process of preparing my child for life after high
school) to 100% (I understand my child’s needs and
goals).

3.2.3. Interagency collaboration survey
The frequencies and percentage for all survey items

can be found in Table 3. At least 50% of respondents
rated items great or very great for all items expect
item 3 (Implements collaborative funding of transi-
tion services). The highest rated items (i.e., greater
than 90% rated great or very great) suggested respon-
dents collaborated, developed solutions, understood
their roles and responsibilities, felt trustworthy, and
felt worthwhile in working with partner agencies (i.e.,
items 11, 12, 13, 22, 24, and 27).

4. Discussion

While previous research (Flowers et al., 2018)
has demonstrated the positive impact of CIRCLES
on student self-determination and IEP participation,
findings from the current study indicate high lev-
els of stakeholder satisfaction with CIRCLES. For
example, both students and parents felt they had
been actively involved in the transition planning pro-
cess and that students were prepared for post-school
life. In addition, stakeholders indicated high levels
of interagency collaboration as a result of CIRCLES.
These findings extend the literature on interagency
collaboration in a number of ways. First, this study
appears to be one of the first to collect perceptions

of students and parents on their satisfaction with the
interagency collaboration provided. Second, the cur-
rent findings support previous research (Noonan et
al., 2014; Noonan et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2016)
indicating agency satisfaction with specific intera-
gency collaboration strategies.

Other key findings from the study included strate-
gies for overcoming the barriers to interagency
collaboration noted in previous research (Meadows et
al., 2014; Reisen et al., 2014) including implementing
procedures for follow-up after SLT meetings, pro-
viding training to parents on what to expect from
CIRCLES, improving communication with agency
members, and continuing ongoing training for teach-
ers. These findings confirm those of Povenmire-Kirk
et al. (2015) and also extend the knowledge in the
field. For example, Noonan et al. (2013) named
establishing follow-up procedures for students and
providing training of families as two of the 11 key
strategies for successful interagency collaboration.
Another key strategy listed was training of teachers
and staff (Noonan et al., 2013), which may improve
teachers’ perception of locus of control, leading
to increased interagency collaboration (Meadows et
al., 2014). In addition, Noonan et al. (2014) noted
the importance of communication among agency
providers leading to higher levels of collaboration
and cooperation. The respondent groups in this study
included parents, teachers, and students, in addition
to the agency and district personnel who participated
in Povenmire-Kirk et al. (2015). It is encouraging to
find the same positives and supports identified across
all four groups, confirming what agency members
reported in 2015.

4.1. Limitations

One limitation of this study, as in many focus group
analyses, is that there may be undue influence of some
members of the group that stifle the input of a few. A
second limitation is that focus groups tend to attract
people who either really like or really hate a pro-
gram or entity. Third, because the focus of this study
was on district-level experiences with CIRCLES, par-
ticipant demographic were not collected. Together,
these limitations may have resulted in a sample not
representative of the whole.

4.2. Suggestions for future research

Results of this study indicated need for future
research in a number of areas. First, future research

56 T.C. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Building an interagency network for transition planning

should collect stakeholder demographic data to
ensure representativeness. Second, although most
items on the interagency collaboration ratings (see
Table 3), were positive, 55% rated collaborative
funding of transition services as “very small” to
“somewhat.” As a result, future research is needed
to investigate ways to braid funding. It is possible the
pre-employment transition services and memoran-
dum of understanding required by WIOA (2015) will
provide an opportunity for this research to emerge.

Third, future research should consider gathering
pre-post data on consumer satisfaction and levels of
collaboration. Without these data, it is difficult to
claim a causal relationship between an intervention
and changes in satisfaction and collaboration.

Fourth, future research in the area of secondary
transition and interagency collaboration should con-
sider using social network analysis (SNA; Knoke &
Yang, 2008). SNA would allow researchers to exam-
ine changes in the strength of collaboration between
agencies over time.

Finally, while findings from the current study
indicate CIRCLES had a positive impact on local
community levels of interagency collaboration simi-
lar to Noonan et al. (2013), future research is needed
for strategies of both the local and state levels (cf.,
Noonan et al., 2014).

4.3. Implications for practice

Results of this study indicate CIRCLES may
improve the collaborative transition planning efforts
of teachers, parents, students, and agency members,
including vocational rehabilitation counselors. As
such, they point to several implications for practice.
First, as previous research has noted, teacher lack
of knowledge of available post-high school supports
(Reisen et al., 2014) and lack of information sharing
and VR involvement in the IEP process (Taylor et al.,
2016) are often barriers to successful interagency col-
laboration. It appears these barriers can be overcome
through the SLT process by having stakeholders learn
about the support each community agency can pro-
vide. This increased awareness can be then be shared
with other teachers and parents to extend the col-
laboration. Second, agency members, including VR
counselors should collaborate with other agencies
to expand their knowledge of what is available and
what each agency can provide to increase collabo-
ration. Third, school transition personnel should use
this model to implement a “CIRCLES-type” tiered
interagency collaboration program in their district

by first building a CLT. This can be accomplished
by connecting with an existing community team or
establishing a new one. The CLT can also provide
necessary training for teachers on preparing students.
With a CLT in place, the SLT can then bring students,
families, teachers, and agencies together to help stu-
dents transition seamlessly into their adult life after
high school.

5. Conclusion

When used with fidelity, the CIRCLES model
can ensure the right people are involved in transi-
tion planning process of students with disabilities.
Results of this study indicate CIRCLES may be
used to overcome many barriers to successful intera-
gency collaboration identified by previous research.
With careful planning and training, students, par-
ents, teachers, and agencies can all work together to
develop a collaborative plan for transition services
for each individual student.

Author note

This document was produced under U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, Institute for Education Sciences
Grant No. R324A110018 awarded to Dr. David W.
Test and Dr. Claudia Flowers at the University of
North Carolina at Charlotte. The opinions expressed
are those of the authors and do not represent views of
the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

Aspel, N., Bettis, G., Quinn, P., Test, D. W., & Wood, W. M. (1999).
A collaborative process for planning transition services for all
students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 22, 21-42.

Beamish, W., Meadows, D., & Davies, M. (2012). Benchmarking
teacher practice in Queensland transition programs for youth
with an intellectual disability and autism. The Journal of Spe-
cial Education, 45, 227-241. doi: 10.1177/0022466910366602

Flowers, C. P., Test, D. W., Povenmire-Kirk, T., Diegelmann,
K. M., Bunch-Crump, K., & Kemp-Inman, A. (2018).
A demonstration model of interagency collaboration
for students with disabilities: A multi-level model.

T.C. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Building an interagency network for transition planning 57

The Journal of Special Education, 51, 211-221. doi:
10.1177/0022466917720764

Frey, B. B., Lohmeier, J. H., Lee, S. W., & Tollefson, N.
(2006). Measuring Collaboration among grant partners.
American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 383-392. doi:
10.1177/1098214006290356

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L., (1968). The Discovery of Grounded
Theory. Chicago, IL, Aldine Publishing Company.

Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Migliore, A. (2011). Comparing the tran-
sition planning, postsecondary education, and employment
outcomes of students with intellectual and other disabilities.
Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 4-17.

Haber, M. G., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Rowe, D. A.,
Bartholomew, A. L., Test, D. W., & Fowler, C. H. (2016).
What works, when, for whom, and with whom: A meta-
analytic review of predictors of postsecondary success for
students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 86,
123-162.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004,
20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2004).

Kohler, P. D. (1996). A taxonomy for transition programming:
Linking research and practice. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Tran-
sition Research Institute.

Kohler, P. D., Gothberg, J. E., Fowler, C., & Coyle, J. (2016). Tax-
onomy for transition programming 2.0: A model for planning,
organizing, and evaluating transition education, services,
and programs. Western Michigan University. Available at
www.transitionta.org.

Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Landmark, L. J., Ju, S., & Zhang, D. (2010). Substantiated
best practices in transition: Fifteen plus years later. Career
Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 33,
165-176.

Lee, G. K., & Carter, E. W. (2012). Preparing transition-age
students with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder for
meaningful work. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 988-1000.
doi: 10.1002/pits.21651

Mazzotti, V. L., Rowe, D. A., Cameto, R., Test, D. W., & Morn-
ingstar, M. E. (2013). Identifying and promoting transition
evidence-based practices and predictors of success: A position
paper of the division on career development and transition.
Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individu-
als, 36, 140-151. doi: 10.1177/2165143413503365

Meadows, D., Davies, M., & Beamish, W. (2014). Teacher
control over interagency collaboration: A roadblock for
effective transitioning of youth with disabilities. Interna-
tional Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 61,
332-345.

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology,
22, 129-152.

Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K.,
Shaver, D., . . . Schwarting, M. (2011). The post-high school
outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after

high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transi-
tion Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA:
SRI International.

Noonan, P. M., McCall, Z. A., Zheng, C., & Gaumer Erickson,
A. S. (2012). An analysis of collaboration in a state-
level interagency transition team. Career Development and
Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 35, 143-154. doi:
10.1177/2165143412443083

Noonan, P., Gaumer Erickson, A., McCall, Z, Frey, B. B., & Zheng,
C. (2014). Evaluating change in interagency collaboration of
a state-level interagency education team: A social network
approach within a utilization-focused framework. Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26, 301-316. doi:
10.1007/s11092-014-9193-2

Noonan, P. M., Gaumer Erickson, A., & Morningstar, M. E. (2013).
Effects of community transition teams on interagency collab-
oration for school and adult agency staff. Career Development
and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 96-104.

Noonan, P. M., Morningstar, M. E., & Gaumer Erickson, A. (2008).
Improving interagency collaboration: Effective strategies used
by high-performing local districts and communities. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 132-143.

Oertle, K. M., Plotner, A. J., & Trach, J. S. (2013). Rehabilita-
tion professionals’ expectations for transition and interagency
collaboration. Journal of Rehabilitation, 79(3), 25-35.

Povenmire-Kirk, T., Diegelmann, K., Crump, K., Schnorr, C., Test,
D., Flowers, C., & Aspel, N. (2015). Implementing CIRCLES:
A new model for interagency collaboration in transition plan-
ning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 42, 51-65.

Reisen, T., Morgan, R., Schultz, J., & Kupferman, S. (2014).
School-to-work barriers as identified bt special educators,
vocational rehabilitation counselors, and community rehabili-
tation professionals. Journal of Rehabilitation, 80, 33-44.

Taylor, D. L., Morgan, R. L., & Callow-Heusser, C. A. (2016) A
survey of vocational rehabilitation counselors and special edu-
cation teachers on collaboration in transition planning. Journal
of Vocational Rehabilitation, 44, 163-173.

Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Richter, S. M., White, J., Mazzotti, V.,
Walker, A. R., Kohler, P., & Kortering, L. (2009). Evidence-
based practices in secondary transition. Career Development
for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 115-128.

Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, R., Kortering,
L., & Kohler, P. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition
predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with
disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,
32, 160-181. doi: 10.1177/0885728809346960

Trach, J. S. (2012). Degree of collaboration for successful transi-
tion outcomes. Journal of Rehabilitation, 78(2), 39-48.

Webb, K., Repetto, J., Seabrook-Blackmore, J., Patterson, K. B., &
Alderfer, K. (2014). Career development: Preparation, integra-
tion, and collaboration. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,
40, 231-238. doi: 10.3233/JVR-140688

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2015, P. L. 113-128,
29 U.S.C. Sec. 3101, et. seq.

www.transitionta.org

Copyright of Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation is the property of IOS Press and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

Overview

 

 

 

Our team has been immersed in ‘whole system change’ for the past few years
in Ontario, Canada; California; Australia and New Zealand; and elsewhere. Our main
mode of learning is to go from practice to theory, and then back and forth to obtain
more specific insights about how to lead and participate in transformative change in
schools and school systems.

In this workshop we take the best of these insights from our most recent
publications: Stratosphere, The Professional Capital of Teachers, The Principal,
Freedom to Change, and Coherence and integrate the ideas into a single set of
learnings.

The specific objectives for participants are:

1. To learn to take initiative on what we call ‘Freedom to Change’.
2. To Understand and be able to use the ‘Coherence Framework’.
3. To analyze your current situation and to identify action strategies fro making

improvements.
4. Overall to gain insights into ‘leadership in a digital age’.

We have organized this session around six modules:

Module I Freedom From Change 1-

4

Module II Focusing Direction 5-

10

Module III Cultivating Collaborative Cultures 11-

14

Module IV Deepening Learning 15-2

2

Module V Securing Accountability 23-

30

Module VI Freedom To Change 31-

32

References 3

3

 

 

 

 

Please feel free to reproduce and use the
material in this booklet with your staff and others.

201

5

 

 

 

Freedom From Change

1

 

 
Shifting to
the Right Drivers

Right Wrong

§ Capacity building

§ Collaborative work

§ Pedagogy

§ Systemness

§

Accountability

§ Individual teacher and

leadership quality

§ Technology

§ Fragmented strategies

Freedom:

If you could make one

change in your school or

system what would it be?

What obstacles stand in

your way?

What would you change? What are the obstacles?

Trio Talk:

§ Meet up with two colleagues.

§ Share your choice and rationale.

§ What were the similarities and differences in the choices?

Module 1

 

2

The Concepts of Freedom § Freedom to is getting rid of the constraints.

§ Freedom from is figuring

out what to do when you

become more liberated.

Seeking Coherence § Within your table read the seven quotes from Coherence and circle
the one you like the best.

§ Go around the table and see who selected which quotes.

§ As a group discuss what ‘coherence’ means.

Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts, and Systems

Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. ( 2015). Corwin & Ontario Principals’ Council.

 
# Quote

1. There is only one way to achieve greater coherence, and that is through purposeful action and interaction,
working on capacity, clarity, precision of practice, transparency, monitoring of progress, and continuous
correction. All of this requires the right mixture of “pressure and support”: the press for progress within
supportive and focused cultures. p. 2

2. Coherence making in other words is a continuous process of making and remaking meaning in your own
mind and in your culture. Our framework shows you how to do this. p. 3

3. Effective change processes shape and reshape good ideas as they build capacity and ownership among
participants. There are two components: the quality of the idea and the quality of the process. p.14

4. … that these highly successful organizations learned from the success of others but never tried to imitate
what others did. Instead, they found their own pathway to success. They did many of the right things, and
they learned and adjusted as they proceeded. p.

15

5. Most people would rather be challenged by change and helped to progress than be mired in frustration.
Best of all, this work tackles “whole systems” and uses the group to change the group. People know they
are engaged in something beyond their narrow role. It is human nature to rise to a larger call if the
problems are serious enough and if there is a way forward where they can play a role with others.
Coherence making is the pathway that does this. p. ix

6. What we need is consistency of purpose, policy, and practice. Structure and strategy are not enough. The
solution requires the individual and collective ability to build shared meaning, capacity, and commitment
to

action.

When large numbers of people have a deeply understood sense of what needs to be done—
and see their part in achieving that purpose—coherence emerges and powerful things happen. p. 1

7. Coherence pertains to people individually and especially collectively. To cut to the chase, coherence
consists of the shared depth of understanding about the purpose and nature of the work. Coherence,
then, is what is in the minds and actions of people individually and especially collectively. p. 1-2

 

Freedom From Change

 

3

The Coherence Framework

 
 

Securing
Accountability

Focusing
Direction

Deepening
Learning

Cultivating
Collaborative

Cultures

Leadership

Module 1

 
4

Notes:

 

Focusing Direction

5

 

 
Focusing Direction

Purpose Driven:
Quick Write

Clarify your own moral purpose by reflecting and recording your

thoughts about these four questions using the quick write protocol:

§ What is your moral purpose?

§

What actions do I take to realize this moral purpose?

§

How do I help others clarify their moral purpose?

§ Am I making progress in realizing my moral purpose with

students?

Share your thoughts with other members of your team and discuss

themes that emerge.

Focusing Direction

§ Purpose Driven
§ Goals That Impact
§ Clarity of Strategy
§ Change Leadership

Deepening
Learning

Securing
Accountability

Cultivating
Collaborative
Cultures
Leadership

Module 2

 

6

 
What is my moral purpose?

What actions do I take to realize this moral purpose?

How do I help others clarify their moral purpose?

Am I making progress in realizing my moral purpose with students?

Focusing Direction

 

7

 
Clarity of Strategy § Successful change processes are a function of shaping and

reshaping good ideas as they build capacity and ownership.

§ Clarity about goals is not sufficient. Leaders must develop shared

understanding in people’s minds and collective action. Coherence

becomes a function of the interplay between the growing

explicitness of the strategy and the change culture. The two

variables of explicitness of strategy and quality of the change

culture interact creating four different results.

Change Quality Protocol

1. Superficiality

When the strategy is not very precise, actionable or clear (low explicitness) and people are comfortable

in the culture, we may see activity but at very superficial levels.

2. Inertia

This quadrant represents the history of the teaching profession—behind the classroom door, where

teachers left each other alone with a license to be creative or ineffective.

Innovative teachers receive little feedback on their ideas, nor do these ideas become available to others

and isolated, less than effective teachers get little help to improve.

3. Resistance

When innovations are highly prescribed (often detailed programs bought off the shelf) but culture is

weak and teachers have not been involved sufficiently in developing ownership and new capacities, the

result is pushback and resistance. If the programs are sound, they can result in short term gains

(tightening an otherwise loose system), but because teachers have not been engaged in shaping the

ideas or the strategy there is little willingness to take risks.

4. Depth

A strong climate for change with an explicitness of strategy is optimal. People operating in conditions of

high trust, collaboration, and effective leadership, are more willing to innovate and take risks. If we

balance that with a strategy that has precision, clarity, and measures of success, changes implemented

will be deep and have impact.

 
 

Module 2

 

8

Change Quality Quadrant

Change Climate (vertical axis):

§ Describes the degree to which a culture supports change by

fostering trust, nonjudgmentalism, leadership, innovation, and

collaboration.

Explicitness (horizontal axis):

§ Describes the degree of explicitness of the strategy, including

precision of the goals, clarity of the strategy, use of data, and

supports.

 

Change Quality Protocol

1. Brainstorm individually all the changes you are implementing in

your school or district and place each idea on a post-it along with

your initial.

2. Consider evidence of explicitness of the strategy and the strength

of the culture for each initiative. Mark the post-it as belonging to

quadrant 1, 2, 3 or 4.

3. When the first two steps are completed, all peers should place their

post-its on the quadrants at the same time.

4. Review each post-it looking for similarities or differences. Discuss

the evidence that led to the placement.

5. Select two or three important changes and discuss:

§ What is effective/ineffective about the explicitness of the

strategy?

§ What is effective/ineffective about the culture for change?

 
 

Focusing Direction

 

9

Three Keys to Maximizing
Impact

 
The Lead Learner:
The Principal’s New Role

To increase impact, principals should use their time differently: they

should direct their energies to developing the group.

The Principal’s New Role To lead the school’s teachers in a process of learning to improve their
teaching, while learning alongside them about what works and what

doesn’t.

 
 

Module 2

 
10

Notes:

 

Cultivating Collaborative Cultures

11

 

 
Cultivating Collaborative
Cultures

Within-School Variability

§ Variability of performance between schools is 36%, while variability

within schools is 64%. —OECD (2013)

Turn and Talk § Read the excerpt from John Hattie and discuss what the meaning
of ‘within school variability’ is.

Introduction

Hattie, J. (2015). What Works Best in Education: The Politics of Collaborative Expertise, pp. 1-2, Pearson.

 
The Largest Barrier to Student Learning: Within-School Variability

If we are to truly improve student learning, it is vital that we identify the most important barrier to such

improvement. And that barrier is the effect of within-school variability on learning. The variability between schools

in most Western countries is far smaller than the variability within schools (Hattie 2015). For example, the 2009

PISA results for reading across all OECD countries shows that the variability between schools is 36 per cent, while

the variance within schools is 64 per cent (OECD 2010).

There are many causes of this variance within schools, but I would argue that the most important (and one that we

have some influence to reduce) is the variability in the effectiveness of teachers. I don’t mean to suggest that all

teachers are bad; I mean that there is a great deal of variability among teachers in the effect that they have on

student learning. This variability is well known, but rarely discussed, perhaps because this type of discussion would

necessitate potentially uncomfortable questions. Hence, the politics of distraction are often invoked to avoid

asking them.

Cultivating
Collaborative Cultures
§ Culture of Growth
§ Learning Leadership
§

Capacity Building

§ Collaborative Work

Deepening
Learning
Securing
Accountability
Focusing
Direction
Leadership

Module 3

 

12

Overcoming Variability Through Collaborative Expertise

There is every reason to assume that by attending to the problem of variability within a school and increasing the

effectiveness of all teachers there will be a marked overall increase in achievement. So the aim is to bring the effect

of all teachers on student learning up to a very high standard. The ‘No Child Left Behind’ policy should have been

named ‘No Teacher Left Behind’.

This is not asking teachers and school leaders to attain some impossibly high set of dream standards; this is merely

asking for all teachers to have the same impact as our best teachers. Let’s consider some analogies: not all doctors

have high levels of expertise, and not all are in an elite college of surgeons; not all architects are in royal societies;

and not all engineers are in academies of engineers. Just because a doctor, architect or engineer is not a member

of these august bodies, however, does not mean that they are not worth consulting. They may not have achieved

the upper echelon, but they will still have reached a necessary level of expertise to practise.

Similarly, the teaching profession needs to recognise expertise and create a profession of educators in which all

teachers aspire to become members of the college, society or academy of highly effective and expert teachers.

Such entry has to be based on dependable measures based on expertise. In this way, we can drive all upwards and

not only reduce the variability among teachers and school leaders but also demonstrate to all (voters, parents,

politicians, press) that there is a ‘practice of teaching’; that there is a difference between experienced teachers and

expert teachers; and that some practices have a higher probability of being successful than others. The alternative

is the demise of teacher expertise and a continuation of the politics of distraction.

So, my claim is that the greatest influence on student progression in learning is having highly expert, inspired and

passionate teachers and school leaders working together to maximise the effect of their teaching on all students in

their care. There is a major role for school leaders: to harness the expertise in their schools and to lead successful

transformations. There is also a role for the system: to provide the support, time and resources for this to happen.

Putting all three of these (teachers, leaders, system) together gets at the heart of collaborative expertise.

§ Human Capital

§ Social Capital

§ Decisional Capital

What has a greater

impact

on teaching and learning?

§ Teacher appraisal?

§ Professional Development

§ Collaborative Cultures

Cultivating Collaborative Cultures

 

13

School Cultures § Talented schools improve weak teachers

§ Talented teachers leave weak schools

§ Good collaboration reduces bad variation

§ The sustainability of an organization is a function of the quality of

its lateral relationships

Freedom To Means § Autonomy & Cooperation

Balancing Autonomy
& Cooperation

§ If you choose

being on your

own you lose the

human

connection

necessary for life.

§ If you succumb to

the extreme of

being absorbed

in a group, you

lose your identity.

Struggle between Autonomy
and Cooperation

§ Countries granting schools independent status freer from

traditional bureaucracies find pockets of innovation among a larger

number of pockets of failure.

§ What is needed for success is to combine flexibility with

requirements for cooperation.

Forms of Cooperation § Building collaborative cultures

§ Participating in networks of schools or districts to learn from each

other

§ Relating to state policies and priorities

Groupthink § …situations where groups are cohesive, have highly directive
leadership, and fail to seek external information. Such groups

strive for unanimity, failing to consider alternative courses of

action.

Module 3

 
14

Point & Go? Meet up with a colleague from another table group.

§ Discuss a time you were part of groupthink. What impact did it

have on the group and you personally?

§ What is the power of autonomy?

§ How do you balance autonomy and cooperation?

 

Notes:

 

Deepening Learning

15

 

 
Deepening Learning

Stratosphere

Deep Learning
Competencies

§ The 6C’s provides an advance organizer for thinking about Deep

Learning Competencies as identified by New Pedagogies for Deep

Learning. The placemat organizer can be used to activate prior

knowledge about the 6C’s or to look for examples of the 6C’s

using video exemplars.

Exciting new learning
needs to be:

§ Irresistibly engaging

§ Elegantly efficient

§ Technology ubiquitous

§ Steeped in real life problem solving

§ Involves deep learning

STRATOSPHERE

Deepening Learning

§ Clarity of Learning Goals
§ Precision in Pedagogy
§ Shift Practices Through

Capacity Building
Focusing
Direction
Securing
Accountability
Cultivating
Collaborative
Cultures
Leadership

Module 4

 

16

The 6C’s Protocol § Form groups of six with each peer assigned one of the 6C’s.

§ Review the descriptors of the six deep learning competencies. Each

group member will take one competency and provide an example

of what that competency might look like and sound like in practice

or how it is being developed in their classroom or school.

§ Share the examples within the group of six.

§ Select a video of classroom practice and analyze it for examples of

how the six deep learning competencies are being developed. Use

the same graphic organizer to record evidence.

§ Discuss ways to incorporate one or more competencies in future

learning designs.

The 6C’s Protocol

1.

Communication

§ Coherent communication using a range of modes

§ Communication designed for different audiences

§ Substantive, multimodal communication

§ Reflection on and use of the process of learning to improve communication

2. Critical thinking
§ Evaluating information and arguments

§ Making connections and identifying patterns

§ Problem solving

§ Meaningful knowledge construction

§ Experimenting, reflecting, and taking action on ideas in the real world

3.

Collaboration

§ Working interdependently as a team

§ Interpersonal and team-related skills

§ Social, emotional, and intercultural skills

§ Management of team dynamics and challenges

4.

Creativity

§ Economic and social entrepreneurialism

§ Asking the right inquiry questions

§ Considering and pursuing novel ideas and solutions

§ Leadership for action

5. Character
§ Learning to learn

§ Grit, tenacity, perseverance, and resilience

§ Self-regulation and responsibility

§ Empathy for and contributing to the safety and benefit of others

6.

Citizenship

§ A global perspective

§ Understanding of diverse values and worldviews

§ Genuine interest in human and environmental sustainability

Deepening Learning

 

17

The 6 C’s of Learning Goals

Communication

Creativity

Critical Thinking

Character

Collaboration

Citizenship

Module 4

 

18

My Learning

Deepening Learning

Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2015). Coherence, pp. 95-96. Corwin & Ontario Principals’ Council.

 
My Learning

The first element refers to the need for students to take responsibility for their learning and to

understand the process of learning, if it is to be maximized. This requires students to develop skills in

learning to learn, giving and receiving feedback, and enacting student agency.

§ Learning to learn requires that students build metacognition about their learning. They begin to

define their own learning goals and success criteria; monitor their own learning and critically

examine their work; and incorporate feedback from peers, teachers, and others to deepen their

awareness of how they function in the learning process.

§ Feedback is essential to improving performance. As students make progress in mastering the

learning process, the role of the teacher gradually shifts from explicitly structuring the learning task,

toward providing feedback, activating the next learning challenge, and continuously developing

the learning environment.

§ Student agency emerges as students take a more active role in codeveloping learning tasks and

assessing results. It is more than participation; it is engaging students in real decision-making and a

willingness to learn together.

 
 

Deepening Learning

 

19

My Belonging

The second element of belonging is a crucial foundation for all human beings who are social by nature

and crave purpose, meaning, and connectedness to others.

§ Caring environments help students to flourish and meet the basic need of all humans to feel they

are respected and belong.

§ Relationships are integral to preparing for authentic learning. As students develop both

interpersonal connections and intrapersonal insight, they are able to move to successively more

complex tasks in groups and independently. Managing collaborative relationships and being self-

monitoring are skills for life.

My Aspirations

Student results can be dramatically affected by the expectations they hold of themselves and the

perceptions they believe others have for them (see also Quaglia & Corso, 2014).

§ Expectations are a key determinant of success, as noted in Hattie’s research. Students must believe

they can achieve and also feel that others believe that. They must codetermine success criteria and

be engaged in measuring their growth. Families, students, and teachers can together foster higher

expectations through deliberate means—sometimes simply by discussing current and ideal

expectations and what might make them possible to achieve.

§ Needs and interests are a powerful accelerator for motivation and engagement. Teachers who tap

into the natural curiosity and interest of students are able to use that as a springboard to deeply

engage students in tasks that are relevant, authentic, and examine concepts and problems in

depth.

Teachers, schools, and districts that combine strategies to unlock the three elements in their students

will foster untapped potential and form meaningful learning partnerships.

 
How good is your school
at addressing the three
‘mys’?

§ My learning (scale 1-10) = __________

§ My belonging (scale 1-10) = __________

§ My aspirations (scale 1-10) = __________

 
Reflect on what you can do to accelerate meaningful learning partnerships with students in you school.

 
 

Module 4

 

20

 

Deepening Learning

 

21

Students, Computers, and
Learning

§ Countries that invest more heavily in ICT do less well in student

achievement.

—OECD, 2015

Early Insights about
Leadership for NPDL:
Direction, Letting Go,
Consolidating

§ A cycle of trying things and making meaning

§ Co-learning dominates

§ Leaders spent a lot of time listening, learning, asking questions

§ Leaders help articulate what is happening, and how it relates to

impact

§ The role of tools is to provide focus and shape without

suffocating context

§ Ultimately you need people to take charge of their own learning

in a context of individual and collective efficacy

 

Module 4

 

22

Notes:

Securing Accountability

23

 
Securing Accountability

Accountability

Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2015). Coherence, pp. 110-111. Corwin & Ontario Principals’ Council.

Simply stated, accountability is taking responsibility for one’s actions. At the core of accountability in

educational systems is student learning. As City, Elmore, Fiarman, and Teitel (2009) argue, “the real

accountability system is in the tasks that students are asked to do” (p. 23). Constantly improving and

refining instructional practice so that students can engage in deep learning tasks is perhaps the single

most important responsibility of the teaching profession and educational systems as a whole. In this

sense, accountability as defined here is not limited to mere gains in test scores but on deeper and more

meaningful learning for all students.

Internal accountability occurs when individuals and groups willingly take on personal, professional,
and collective responsibility for continuous improvement and success for all students (Hargreaves &

Shirley, 2009). “ p. 110-111

External accountability is when system leaders reassure the public through transparency,
monitoring, and selective intervention that their system is performing in line with societal expectations

and requirements. The priority for policy makers, we argue, should be to lead with creating the

conditions for internal accountability, because they are more effective in achieving greater overall

accountability, including external accountability. Policy makers also have direct responsibilities to

address external accountability, but this latter function will be far more effective if they get the internal

part right.

Securing Accountability

§ Internal Accountability
§ External Accountability

Focusing
Direction
Deepening
Learning
Cultivating
Collaborative
Cultures
Leadership

Module 5

 

24

Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts, and Systems

Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. ( 2015). Corwin & Ontario Principals’ Council, pp. 117-118.

 
# Quote

1. Accountability is now primarily described as an accountability for student learning. It is less about some
test result and more about accepting ownership of the moral imperative of having every student learn.
Teachers talk about “monitoring” differently. As they engage in greater sharing of the work, they talk
about being accountable as people in the school community know what they are doing and looking to
see what is changing for students as a result. And as they continue to deprivatize teaching, they talk about
their principal and peers coming into their classrooms and expecting to see the work [of agreed-upon
practices] reflected in their teaching, their classroom walls, and student work. (Anonymous, personal
communication, November 2014)

2. Teachers and administrators talk about accountability by deprivatizing their practice. If everyone knows
what the other teacher or administrator is working on and how they are working on it with students, it
becomes a lot easier to talk about accountability. When everyone has an understanding of accountability,
creating clear goals and steps to reach those goals, it makes it easier for everyone to talk and work in
accountable environments. (Elementary principal, personal communication, November 2014)

3. We are moving to define accountability as responsibility. My district has been engaged in some important
work that speaks to intrinsic motivation, efficacy, perseverance, etc., and accountability is seen as doing
what is best for students . . . working together to tackle any challenge and being motivated by our
commitment as opposed to some external direction. (Superintendent, personal communication,
November 2014)

4. I do believe that a lot of work remains to be done on building common understanding on the notion of
accountability. Many people still believe that someone above them in the hierarchy is accountable. Very
few take personal accountability for student learning and achievement. There are still those who blame
parents and students’ background for achievement. (Consultant, personal communication, November
2014)

5. In one school, the talk about accountability was pervasive as the school became designated as
underperforming. The morale of the school went down significantly, and the tension was omnipresent at
every meeting. The team switched the conversation to motivation, innovation, and teamwork and the
culture changed. The school is energized and the test scores went up in one year. The team is now
committed to results and continuous improvement. (Consultant, personal communication, November
2014)

 

Securing Accountability

 

25

Three Step Interview

1. Form teams of three and letter off A, B. and C.

2. Read the excerpt on ‘Accountability’ from Coherence above and the

five quotes. Think about the responses to the questions below.

3. Begin the cycle with person A as the Interviewer, B as the

Respondent and C as the Recorder using the Advance Organizer.

4. Provide five minutes for each Respondent to respond and then

continue the cycle until all participants have been interviewed.

 
Question Person A Person B Person C

1. How would

you distinguish

between

Internal and

External

Accountability?

2. Describe

strategies your

school/district

uses to build

Internal

Accountability?

3. What steps

will you take to

ensure the

effective

implementation

of External

Accountability?

 
 

Module 5

 

26

Know They Impact Turn and Talk:

§ Read the excerpt from John Hattie. What does your school

specifically do to develop a culture of evidence?

Know They Impact!

Hattie, J. (2015). What Works Best in Education: The Politics of Collaborative Expertise,

pp. 15-16. Pearson.

 
The model advanced here is that the school leader is responsible for asking on a continual basis about the impact

of all the adults on the learning of the students. Of course, I am not forgetting that the students are players in

improving their learning. But that is the bonus, the compound-interest component. What is requested is that

school leaders become leaders in evaluating the impact of all in the school on the progress of all students; the

same for teachers; and the same for students.

School leaders need to be continually working with their staff to evaluate the impact of all on student progression.

Leaders need to create a trusting environment where staff can debate the effect they have and use the information

to devise future innovations. And leaders need to communicate the information on impact and progression to the

students and parents. Schools need to become incubators of programs, evaluators of impact and experts at

interpreting the effects of teachers and teaching on all students.

In short, we need to develop an evaluation climate in our education system.

Experience has shown that ten- to twelve-week cycles of evaluation are about optimal. Fewer weeks tend to lead

to over-assessment or insufficient time to detect change; more weeks and the damage or success is done. We

should know this and react appropriately. It does mean asking teachers to be clear about what success or impact

would look like before they start to teach a series of lessons.

Of course, this must start by asking the questions, ‘Impact on what? To what magnitude? Impact for whom?’

Evaluating impact requires analyses of what a year’s growth looks like, and it is likely it may differ depending on

where the student begins in this growth. Evaluating impact asks schools and systems to be clearer about what it

means to be good at various disciplines, to be clearer about what a year’s progress looks like and to provide staff

with collaborative opportunities to make these decisions.

This is the hardest part of our work, as teachers we have been so ingrained to wait and see what the students do,

to see which students attend and then to pick out examples of successful progress. Our alternative model asks that

teachers be clearer about what success would look like and the magnitude of the impact, and we ask them to

prepare assessments to administer at the end – before they start teaching. The bonus of this latter preparation is

that it ensures that teachers understand what success is meant to look like before they start teaching, and it

increases the likelihood that teachers communicate these notions of success to the students.

There is also a need to include the student voice about teacher impact in the learning/teaching debates; that is, to

hear the students’ view of how they are cared about and respected as learners, how captivated they are by the

lessons, how they can see errors as opportunities for learning, how they can speak up and share their

understanding and how they can provide and seek feedback so they know where to go next. As the Visible

Learning research has shown, the student voice can be highly reliable, rarely includes personality comments and,

appropriately used, can be a major resource for understanding and promoting high-impact teaching and learning.

 
 

Securing Accountability

 

27

Developing a culture of evidence

Janet Clinton and I have used the theories of empowerment evaluation to spell out many of these mind frames (in

Clinton and Hattie 2014). Empowerment evaluation is based on the use of evaluation concepts, techniques and

findings to foster improvement. It increases the likelihood that programmes will achieve results by increasing the

capacity of stakeholders to plan, implement and evaluate their own programmes. We argued that we need to

teach educators:

§ to think evaluatively;

§ to have discussions and debates in light of the impact of what they do;

§ to use the tools of evaluation in schools (such as classroom observations of the impact of teachers on students,

interpreting test scores to inform their impact and future actions, and standard setting methods to clarify what

challenge and progression should look like in this school);

§ to build a culture of evidence, improvement and evaluation capacity-building;

§ to develop a mind frame based on excellence, defined in multiple ways, and for all;

§ and to take pride in our collective impact.

Empowerment evaluation helps to cultivate a continuous culture of evidence by asking educators for evidence to

support their views and interpretations and to engage in continual phases of analysis, decision-making and

implementation.

Note to Self How would I describe our evidence based culture?

 
 

Module 5

 

28

Freedom as Learning Feedback: A Gold Mine of Potential Growth

1. People don’t like feedback and want to be free from it.

2. Feedback is one of the key interacting simplifiers for individuals and

groups wanting to change.

3. To think in terms of active seeking means to think first and foremost

in terms of what receivers of feedback need and can do.

4. Giving and taking feedback are both challenging.

Feedback Forum Meet up with another colleague from a different district. Use the
following questions as the basis for your discussion

§ Think of a time when you received powerful feedback. Why was it

powerful? What did you learn from it?

§ What are the challenges of giving feedback?

§ Describe feedback that inspires growth.

 
Notes

 
 

Securing Accountability

 

29

Freedom To World § If we recast its role, feedback can become one of the most powerful
forces for the betterment of the individual and the organization.

Best Advice § Take a risk and seek feedback, both because you will be worse off if
you do nothing and because you will learn from it.

Cultures that Value
Feedback

Turn and Talk Does our organization have a culture to support providing/receiving
feedback?

What, if anything, could we do to improve the culture for feedback?

Freedom To:
Accountability

If you are seeking feedback and using feedback as an opportunity to

learn with respect to important goals, you are already on the path of

accountability: a willingness to accept responsibility for your own

actions.

 

 
 

Module 5

 
30

Notes:

 

Freedom to Change

31

 

 
Exploration vs
Engagement

§ What’s out there?

§ Who should we partner with

—Pentland, 2014

Criteria for Effective
Networking

1. A small number of ambitious goals (pre-school to tertiary)

2. Leadership at all levels

3. Cultures that produce ‘Collective Efficacy’

4. Mobilizing data and effective practices as a strategy for

improvement

5. Intervention in a non-punitive manner

6. Being transparent, relentless and increasingly challenging

—Rincón-Gallardo & Fullan, in press

New Zealand:

Joint Initiative Agreement

Read the Joint Initiative Agreement

§ What do you like about it?

§ What questions do you have?

§ Discuss implications for your work.

—Rincón-Gallardo & Fullan, in press

New Zealand Education Institute, Ministry of Education

Following up to Working Party Report

 
Working Party Report – Overarching Principles

1. Children are at the centre of a smooth and seamless whole of educational pathway from earliest learning to

tertiary options.

2. Parents who are informed and engaged are involved in their children’s education and part of a community

with high expectations for and of those children.

3. Teachers and education leaders, supported by their own professional learning and growth, and those of their

colleagues will systematically collaborate to improve educational achievement outcomes for their students.

4. Teachers and education leaders will be able to report measurable gain in the specific learning and

achievement challenges of their students.

5. Teachers and leaders will grow the capability and status of the profession within clearly defined career
pathways for development and advancement.

Key Learnings From the Working Group Were:

1. Self-identified Communities of Learning should form around clear learner pathways from early childhood to

secondary education and may, over time, extend to include tertiary learning.

2. Each Community of Learning’s purpose is to enhance student achievement for educational success as set out

in the Vision of the National Curriculum documents; and the Community of Learning should define its own

achievement challenges, learning needs and areas of focus that enable it to support that purpose.

Module 6

 

32

3. Self-identified Communities of Learning should form around clear learner pathways from early childhood to

secondary education and may, over time, extend to include tertiary learning.

4. Each Community of Learning’s purpose is to enhance student achievement for educational success as set out

in the Vision of the National Curriculum documents; and the Community of Learning should define its own

achievement challenges, learning needs and areas of focus that enable it to support that purpose.

5. Each Community of Learning will be able to use data, evidence and research to target their efforts and

resources and demonstrate impact on the learning growth of its students.

6. Each Community of Learning should determine its own leadership and teaching, collaboration and support

functions that align with its achievement challenges, making the best use of its own and new resourcing. Some

leadership and teaching roles and their functions will be required for all Communities of Learning; other

functions may be particular to the Community.

7. Any appointment to a leadership role with the required functions will be made by the Community of Learning

in conjunction with an external professional adviser.

8. Successful collaboration changes and evolves, and Communities of Learning must have sufficient flexibility to

enable this rather than limit it.

9. In recognising these factors, each Community of Learning will access its own and new resources to support the

attainment of its goals.

10. A Community of Learning’s success will be dependent on ‘whole of Community of Learning collaboration’.

Therefore, allocation of sufficient time and resources to support participants in the Community of Learning is

critical.

11. The parties commit to undertake further work on Māori, Pasifika, Early Childhood Education, Support Staff,

Special Education and Professional learning and Development to build on the work begun in the Working

Group in the next and final stage of the Joint Initiative Development. The parties acknowledge this may lead

to additional changes in future collective agreement bargaining rounds.

12. Leadership, teaching, collaboration and support roles within Communities of Learning should align with career
pathways for principals, teachers, support and specialist staff to ensure continuous development of leadership

and teaching capacity.

 

 
Leadership from the
Middle

§ Where is the coherence—where is the glue?

We find it “in the middle”.

What Actions are you going to take home as a result of this workshop?

References

33

Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Seminar Series 204. Melbourne:
Center for Strategic Education.

Fullan, M. (2013). Great to excellent: Launching the next stage of Ontario’s education reform.
www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/FullanReport_EN_07

Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy and change knowledge. Toronto:
Pearson.

Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2015). Freedom to change: Four strategies to put your inner drive into overdrive. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M., & Donnelly, K. (2015). Evaluating and assessing tools in the digital swamp. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.

Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2015). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin; Toronto, ON: Ontario Principals’ Council.

Fullan, M., & Rincón-Gallardo, S. (in press). Developing high quality public education in Canada: The case
of Ontario. In F. Adamson, B. Astrand, & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Global education reform:
Privatization vs public investments in national education systems. New York, NY: Routledge.

Fullan, M., Rincón-Gallardo, S., & Hargreaves, A. (2015). Professional capital as accountability. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 23(15), 1-18.

Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Hattie, J. (2015). What works best in education: The politics of collaborative expertise. London, UK:
Pearson.

Kirtman, L., & Fullan, M. (2015). Leaders who lead. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

New Pedagogies for Deep Learning (NPDL). (2015). Retrieved from www.NPDL.global

November, A. (2012). Who owns the learning? Preparing students for success in the digital age.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). Teachers for the 21s century: Using
evaluation to improve teaching. Paris, France: Author.

Pentland, A. (2014). Social physics: How good ideas spread—the lessons from a new science. New York,
NY: Penguin.

Quaglia, R.J., & Corso, M.J. (2014). Student voice: The instrument of change. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.

Rincón-Gallardo, S., & Fullan, M. (in press). Essential features of effective networks and professional
collaboration. Journal of Professional Capital and Community.

 

Michael Fullan,OC, is professor emeritus at the Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. He

served as special adviser in education to Ontario premier

Dalton McGuinty from 2003 to 2013, and now serves as one

of four advisers to Premier Kathleen Wynne. He has been awarded honorary doctorates from the

University of Edinburgh, University of Leicester, Nipissing University, Duquesne University, and the

Hong Kong Institute of Education. He consults with governments and school systems in several

countries around the world.

Fullan has won numerous awards for his more than thirty books, including the 2015 Grawemeyer

prize with Andy Hargreaves for Professional Capital. His books include the best sellers Leading in a

Culture of Change, The Six Secrets of Change, Change Leader, All Systems Go, Motion Leadership,

and The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact. His latest books are Coherence: The Right

Drivers in Action (with Joanne Quinn), Evaluating and Assessing Tools in the Digital Swamp (with

Katelyn Donnelly), Leadership: Key Competencies (with Lyle Kirtman), and Freedom to Change.

Special thanks to Joanne Quinn and Eleanor Adam for their training design contributions.

Produced by Claudia Cuttress

Cover Design by BlinkBlink

Please visit our website

michaelfullan.ca

Chapter 4

Deepening Learning

Develop Clarity of Learning Goals

The first step in building precision and consistent practices is to be clear about the learning goals. For the last quarter-century, education has been giving superficial lip service to 21st-century skills without much-concerted action or impact. The energy has been invested in describing sets of skills without much robust implementation or effective ways to measure them. If we want to mobilize concerted action and a profound shift in practice, then governments, districts, and schools need to develop clarity of outcomes and build a shared understanding of these by educators, students, and parents. The CCSS is a step in the direction of more in-depth learning.

NPDL is developing clarity of learning goals for what it calls

deep learning

. Deep learning involves using new knowledge to solve real-life problems and incorporates a range of skills and attributes. The global partnership is working to define with specificity six deep learning competencies (the 6Cs), describe what the learning would look like for each of these, identify the pedagogies that foster those competencies and design new measures to assess student progress in developing them. Their deep learning competency framework and initial descriptors of each competency and its dimensions are displayed in Figure 4.

Citizenship

Communication

Character

6Cs

Critical Thinking

Creativity

Collaboration

Communication:

• Coherent communication using a range of modes

• Communication designed for different audiences

• Substantive, multimodal communication

• Reflection on and use of the process of learning to improve communication

Critical Thinking

• Evaluating information and arguments

• Making connections and identifying patterns

• Problem-solving

• Meaningful knowledge construction • Experimenting, reflecting, and taking action on ideas in the real-world

Collaboration

• Working interdependently as a team

• Interpersonal and team-related skills

• Social, emotional, and intercultural skills

• Management of team dynamics and challenges

Creativity

• Economic and social entrepreneurialism

• Asking the right inquiry questions

• Considering and pursuing novel ideas and solutions

• Leadership for action

Character

• Learning to learn

• Grit, tenacity, perseverance, and resilience

• Self-regulation and responsibility

• Empathy for and contributing to the safety and benefit of others

Citizenship

• A global perspective

• Understanding of diverse values and worldviews

• A genuine interest in human and environmental sustainability

• Solving ambiguous, complex, and authentic problems

The overall purpose of the 6Cs is the well-being of the whole student but also the well-being of the group and society as a whole. Learning becomes the development of competencies for the successful negotiation of an uncertain world. Learning is about developing the personal and interpersonal and cognitive capabilities that allow one to diagnose what is going on in the complex, constantly shifting human and technical context of real-world practice and then match an appropriate response (Fullan & Scott, 2014).

In this context, Fullan and Scott (2014) suggest that well-being and success in life incorporate two big Es: entrepreneurialism and ethics. Increasingly in what we might call the citizen of the future and indeed the present, there should be no distinction between being able to work with your hands and your mind. Entrepreneurialism is being able to resolve complex personal and societal challenges locally and globally. Entrepreneurialism does not just pertain to business endeavors. Every time a group tries to solve a social problem (youth crime, homelessness, bullying, and so on), they require the entrepreneurial skills of critical thinking, problem-solving, innovative ideas, collaboration and communication, and the qualities of character.

The mark of an educated person is that of a doer (a doing-thinker; a thinker-doer)—they learn to do and do to learn. They are impatient with lack of action. Doing is not something they decide to do—daily life is doing, as natural as breathing the air. Along with doing is an exquisite awareness of the ethics of life. Small-scale ethics is how they treat others; large-scale ethics concern humankind and the evolution of the planet. When we change our education system and when hordes of people are acting individually and collectively in entrepreneurial and ethical ways, the world changes and keeps on changing with built-in adaptation. sIn strong critical thinking skills such as interpretation, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Students will be not only able to think deeply and independently but also be able to articulate the “why” behind their learning. Students are stretched to use concepts rather than memorize them. Further, these strategies are based on the belief that if students are to flourish in the 21st century, they must take an active role in their education (Hamilton, personal communication, November 2014).

Build Precision in Pedagogy

Schools and districts that make sustained improvement in learning for all students develop explicit frameworks or models to guide the learn- ing process. This instructional guidance system (Bryk, Bender Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010) is crucial because it represents the “black box” of implementation. The history of education is heavily weighted toward lofty goals and outcomes (usually poorly assessed) but weak on pedagogy. Our Coherence Framework makes pedagogical precision a priority and a driving force.

Instructional or pedagogical (we use the terms interchangeably) systems must include the development of at least the following four components:

• Build a common language and knowledge base. Cultivate system-wide engagement by involving all levels of the system to capture and create a model for learning and teaching. Identify the learning goals and principles that underlie the learning process. This collaborative approach builds language to promote meaningful conversations about practice.

• Identify proven pedagogical methods. The process typically begins with an analysis of best practices currently used in the district and an examination of the research to validate the model. Ownership and commitment emerge at all levels of the system study, work, and learn together.

• Build capacity. Provide consistent and sustained capacity building based on research-proven practices to build precision in pedagogy. Teachers need “a deep multidimensional knowledge that allows them both to assess situations quickly and to draw upon a variety of repertoires for intervention. Individual teachers possess such knowledge but it is largely invisible to the field as a whole. There are few ways for it to be gathered, codified and shared” (Mehta, Schwartz, & Hess, 2012). Collective capacity building and the collaborative work processes in previous chapters make the knowledge and skills accessible and visible to all.

• Provide clear causal links to impact. Pedagogies should specify the two-way street between learning and assessment. Such a process serves to strengthen the specificity of instructional practice and its causal efficacy in making a difference to learning. This is what Hattie (2012) is getting at with his mantra “know thy impact.” Knowing your impact is not just a matter of being responsible for outcomes but it also reverberates back to clarify how teaching and learning can be strengthened.

In the NPDL work, we have identified three strands of expertise that teachers need to weave together if they are to support deeper learning. These are precision in pedagogical partnerships that engage students in codesigning authentic, relevant learning,

learning environments

that foster risk-taking and 24/7 connections, and leveraging digital, so it accelerates learning.

We examine each of the three strands of the NPDL depicted in Figure 4.3 and then

Pedagogical Partnerships

The first strand recognizes that teachers must possess deep expertise in instructional and assessment practices if they are to maximize the impact and use of digital to accelerate learning. These new pedagogies build on the foundation of proven pedagogical practices but fuse them with emerging innovative practices that foster the creation and application of new ideas and knowledge in real life. Educators must hone a deep understanding of the learning process and a repertoire of strategies if they are to use digital as an accelerator. The magic is not in the device but the scaffolding of experiences and challenges finely tuned to the needs and interests of students and maximized through relevance, authenticity, and real-world connections.

with a culture that fosters learning for all. If the adults are not thinking at high levels, it is unlikely the students will be either. Districts and schools that get results have clarity about the elements of their instructional system. They build knowledge from the research combined with best practices in their context and then ensure that everyone has the skills and resources to apply them appropriately.

Schools and districts who want to build a common language and knowledge base and identify proven pedagogical practices may want to consider the work of John Hattie in Visible Learning (2009). He reviews the impact of instructional strategies and concludes that what is needed to raise the bar and close the gap is consensus and skill development by all teachers engaged with groups of students around the most impactful strategies. He differentiates the role of teachers as facilitators that has a .17 impact on learning with the role of teachers as an activator at .87. The role of teachers as activators is far more powerful as it is more active in engaging student learning and challenging the next practice.

No learning-teaching process is complete without addressing the black box of assessment. In our NPDL work, we are not only identifying the pedagogies that affect learning but also creating new tools and measures for student success. We are shifting from measuring what is easy to measure what matters. If we want students to develop the 6Cs of communication, critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, character, and citizenship, we need to be able to define and measure those competencies. To that end, we have created learning progressions that describe the pathway many students would follow in developing a competency. These tools become the anchor for meaningful discussion as groups of teachers design more meaningful learning based on the competencies; students and teachers develop success criteria, monitor progress, and evaluate growth. Teams of teachers then collaboratively examine student work and processes to analyze the quality of both the learning design and student progress. They use these data to identify the next appropriate learning challenge.

The new pedagogies go deeper than changing pedagogy between students and teachers; they explore more deeply new roles for students. One of the most distinctive differences between traditional learning and the new pedagogies is the role students play and “the new learning partnerships” that emerge student to student, student to teacher, and student to the external world. New learning goals require changes in how relationships between students, teachers, families, and communities are structured. The shift toward active learning partnerships requires students to take greater charge of their own and each other’s learning inside and outside the classroom. The new learning partnerships have the potential to create more authentic and meaningful learning locally, nationally, and globally. This more active role increases student engagement. The shift to a new balance in decision making is inevitable because students are no longer willing to be passive recipients of learning defined by someone else, are digitally connected to massive amounts of new ideas and information, and respond to traditional academic approaches with passivity once they have foundational skills.

Schools and districts that embrace the new learning partnership are seeing exponential growth in student engagement and success. We filmed recently in W. G. Davis Middle School in Ontario, wherein 2009 students were disengaged, disruptive behaviors were on the rise, and achievement was dropping. The principal and staff collaborated over several months to find a solution. They eventually determined that their students needed better role models and the kind of digital engagement they valued outside the school. They realized that they were the ones who had to become role models for their students. This began a process of implementing more authentic learning using problem-based units that crossed traditional content boundaries and implementing a new bring your device (BYOD) policy. The shift to cross-disciplinary planning and increased technology use caused teachers to move outside of their comfort zone. They began using new strategies for co-planning and using digital resources supporting one another and feeling supported to take risks and even fail at first. Almost immediately, they noticed their roles with students were changing dramatically. Students were more engaged and teacher time in the classroom was spent on giving feedback and challenging the next step in learning rather than in delivering content. As they focused on meaningful, relevant learning using what we are calling the new pedagogies, they also saw more than a 20 percent leap in reading and writing scores over three years on the provincial testing (Video: W. G. Davis,

www.michaelfullan.ca

).

The new learning partnerships we saw at W. G. Davis take time and expertise to develop. Meaningful learning partnerships with students can be accelerated when teachers understand the three elements of the student learning model, depicted in Figure 4.4.

This model goes beyond the notions of student voice and agency to combine both internal development and external connections to the world. We are not talking here about student forums or interest surveys (although they may be part of the approach) but about a deeper engagement of students as codesigners and co-learners. The three elements of the model all contribute to the development of students as active, engaged learners who are prepared to learn for life and experience teaching as life. Educators need to be aware of these critical elements to design learning and environments that maximize student potential to thrive. Moreover—and this is crucial—none of these three components are fixed variables. They can be altered through intervention. This domain represents a vastly underutilized set of factors that would be very high yield (low cost, high impact). The student learning model then focuses on the three elements of student development and the ways they become active participants in my learning, my belonging, and my aspirations.

My Learning

The first element refers to the need for students to take responsibility for their learning and to understand the process of learning if it is to be maximized. This requires students to develop skills in learning to learn, giving and receiving feedback, and enacting student agency. • Learning to learn requires that students build metacognition about their learning. They begin to define their own learning goals and success criteria, monitor their learning and critically examine their work, and incorporate feedback from peers, teachers, and others to deepen their awareness of how they function in the learning process. • Feedback is essential to improving performance. As students make progress in mastering the learning process, the role of the teacher gradually shifts from explicitly structuring the learning task, toward providing feedback, activating the next learning challenge, and continuously developing the learning environment. • Student agency emerges as students take a more active role in co-developing learning tasks and assessing results. It is more than participation; it is engaging students in real decision making and a willingness to learn together.

My Belonging

The second element of belonging is a crucial foundation for all human beings who are social by nature and crave purpose, meaning, and connectedness to others.

• Caring environments help students to flourish and meet the basic need of all humans to feel they are respected and belong. • Relationships are integral to preparing for authentic learning. As students develop both interpersonal connections and intrapersonal insight, they are able to move to successively more complex tasks in groups and independently. Managing collaborative relationships and being self-monitoring are skills for life. My Aspirations Student results can be dramatically affected by the expectations they hold of themselves and the perceptions they believe others have for them .

• Expectations are a key determinant of success, as noted in Hattie’s research. Students must believe they can achieve and also feel that others believe that. They must codetermine success criteria and be engaged in measuring their growth. Families, students, and teachers can together foster higher expectations through deliberate means— sometimes simply by discussing current and ideal expectations and what might make them possible to achieve. • Needs and interests are a powerful accelerator for motivation and engagement. Teachers who tap into the natural curiosity and interest of students are able to use that as a springboard to deeply engage students in tasks that are relevant, authentic, and examine concepts and problems in depth.

Learning Environments

The second strand that fosters the transformation to deep learning is a shift in the learning environment. Quality learning environments that use the pedagogical practices and build the learning partnerships described previously need to meet four criteria: be irresistibly engaging for students and teachers, allows 24/7 access to learning, cultivate social learning, and foster risk-taking and innovation. Students thrive in this type of learning environment and so do teachers.

How, then, do we transform today’s classrooms from the traditional status quo to places of energy, curiosity, imagination, and deep learning? A recent video by the inventor of the Rubik’s cube, Erno Rubik, sheds light on the dilemma when he asks, “How do we get teachers to stop teaching answers but instead to help students generate questions that are waiting for answers?” There is no one recipe for creating classrooms that provoke deep learning, but as we look across the early innovators, we see a few common characteristics. In schools on the pathway to deepening knowledge, we see the following:

• Studentsaskingthequestions.Theyhaveskillsandlanguagetopur- sue inquiry and are not passively taking in the answers from teachers. • Questions valued above solutions. The process of learning, discovering, and conveying is as essential as a result. • Varied models for learning. The selection of approaches is matched to student needs and interests. Students are supported to reach for the

next challenge. • Explicitconnectionstoreal-world application.Learningdesignsare

not left to chance but scaffolded and built on relevance and meaning. • Collaboration. Students possess skills to collaborate within the

classroom and beyond.

• The assessment of learning is embedded, transparent, and authentic. Students define personal goals, monitor progress toward success criteria, and engage in feedback with peers and others.

Leveraging Digital

The third strand of the deep learning trio is leveraging digital. We have purposely moved away from the term technology to signal that this discussion is not about devices but about learning that can be amplified, accelerated, and facilitated by interaction with the digital world. This demands a rethinking of the ways we use technology. It’s not about putting a device in front of every student and leaving them to learn independently. That will only result in students who are digital isolates. It is about bringing the digital world inside the process of learning and building collaboration, within and outside the classroom, in ways that are authentic and relevant. Alan November (2012), a pioneer in the meaningful use of technology for over three decades, describes this new view of the digital world as “transforming learning beyond the $1000 pencil.” Just adding devices is not enough; mindsets and behaviors need to change for both students and teachers. He emphasizes that students must be taught how to use technology appropriately, safely, and ethically to gain understanding at the highest levels (Bloom’s taxonomy or depth of knowledge). Teachers then “guide students in the complex tasks of innovation and problem solving, and in doing work that makes a contribution to the learning processes of others” (November 2012, p. 18).

The challenge for leaders is to help educators move from uses of technology as a substitution to methods of digital that provide value. If I’m a student studying a unit on poverty and I use technology to create a PowerPoint instead of handwriting a report, there may be little value-added. In contrast, if I interview people in four global communities who are living in poverty, synthesize that information, and create my report, there has been tremendous value-added through the layers of critical thinking, communication, character, and global citizenship.

Making the New Pedagogies “gel”

Building capacity in all three strands of the new pedagogies takes persistence and commitment. We find an excellent example of sustained focus that gets new and better results in our work with Napa Valley Unified School District. The district is making progress in building on powerful pedagogical practices—particularly problem-based learning and leveraging digital. Napa has developed a clear instructional focus on what they term their 4Cs and combines that with the growing use of digital. The approach began more than a decade ago at New Tech High but has evolved to engage the entire district. Napa intentionally built the capacity of teachers in every school, over time, to use the new pedagogy and then used the addition of digital devices to enrich the thinking and learning. They have taken an approach to innovation by starting with some schools but using that learning in rapid cycles of reflection and doing to diffuse the learning to all schools. Each year they host an “Educators Exchange” to share the knowledge they are gaining with their schools but also laterally with other school districts. Schools and districts need to foster collaborative inquiry into the three strands of the new pedagogies: pedagogical partnerships, learn- ing environments, and leveraging digital. There is no simple recipe; this is a job for professional educators who must develop the expertise and knowledge base that is a foundation for fostering deeper learning. The simplexity is knowing the elements and integrating them so that every child has the learning experience that challenges and supports them. The challenge for schools and districts is to build momentum across all classrooms.

Once districts and schools have clarified the learning goals and developed precision in pedagogical practices, they must focus on the “how” of shifting practice. They need to identify the processes that will support a shift in practice for all educators. We will highlight the key attributes and then illustrate with examples in action. As we look at districts that are making the shift to support deep learning, we see that several conditions are in place. Superintendents strategies noted in Chapter 3. • The model being lead learners. They don’t send people to capacity building sessions but learn alongside them. • They shape a culture that fosters an expectation of learning for everyone, taking risks and making mistakes but learning from them. • They build capacity vertically and horizontally in the organization with persistence and single-mindedness until it affects learning. How do schools and districts tackle the shift to deep learning? The first step in making a change is to assess the starting point. We offer a few questions for reflection about your capacity to shift the practices in your school, district, or state.

Assessing Capacity

Teachers: 1. Do teachers possess knowledge and skills in pedagogical practices? 2. Do teachers have knowledge and skills to develop new learning partnerships? 3. Do teachers have the knowledge and skills to create learning environments that move beyond the traditional classroom? 4. Do teachers have the knowledge and skills to use digital resources to accelerate learning?

Schools:

1. Do school leaders have the knowledge and skills to create a culture of learning for teachers and students? 2. Do schools have collaborative learning structures and process? 3. Do schools have access to models of effective practice and opportunities to share laterally and vertically?

2. Districts:

3. 1. Does the district have clarity of learning goals? 2. Have high-yield pedagogical practices been identified and shared? 3. Does the district create a culture of learning for all educators? 4. Does the district provide resources for collaborative learning structures and processes to thrive?

We use examples to illustrate how schools and districts can use the elements of the Coherence Framework to assess their starting point and then either focus on continuous improvement of the basic literacies or sustain those basics while innovating with deeper learning. The first school example is Cochrane Collegiate Academy in North Carolina that in 2008 lacked clarity of goals, had little precision or consistency in pedagogy, and had weak capacity and culture to support change. They needed to focus relentlessly on continuous improvement of the basics. The second school example is Park Manor Senior Public School in Ontario, which had some clarity of goals, good pedagogy, and teacher capacity but was underperforming. They combined continuous improvement with innovating with deep learning and digital and saw their writing scores soar.

Cochrane Collegiate Academy

We look first to a school that was able to engage an underperforming student population with dramatic results using pedagogical precision and capacity building. In 2007, Cochrane Collegiate Academy in Charlotte, North Carolina, was listed as one of the 30 lowest-performing schools in North Carolina. By 2011, the number of students performing at grade level had doubled and the achievement gap had been reduced by 35 per- cent in reading and math. Most notable was that their growth was 3.5 times that of North Carolina in mathematics and twice the rate of growth in reading. Cochrane serves a population of 640 students in grades 6 through 8. Eighty-seven percent qualify for free or reduced lunch, 60 percent are African American, and 30 percent are Latino. In a recent Edutopia (n.d.) video, teachers described the situation in 2008 as out of control with students running and screaming in the halls, weak performance at 20 percent in reading and math, and good teachers choosing to leave the profession. Staff attributes their success to their principal who brought out their potential using five key components: 1. Use quality professional development that is research-based, consistent, convenient, relevant, and differentiated. 2. Use time wisely by flipping faculty meeting time to focus on learning, not administration. 3. Trust your teachers to determine the professional learning they need next. 4. Facilitate, don’t dictate by providing teachers with what they need and allowing them to make decisions. 5. Expect the best by holding everyone to high standards. Guided by research, they identified their top 10 teaching practices and engaged weekly in professional learning to help them implement the practices more effectively. Their non-negotiable list of strategies included the following: essential questions, activating strategy, relevant vocabulary, limited lecture, graphic organizer, the student movement, higher-order thinking questions, summarize, rigorous, and student-centered.

What differentiates this school is not which top 10 instructional strategies they selected but the fact that they built a common language, knowledge base, and set of practices about quality learning and teaching. They instituted pr.actices and processes such as weekly professional learning targeted to this instructional guidance system. Strong professional relationships, collaborative work, and learning partnerships with their students are making the difference. They have work still to be done but are on a trajectory for success.

Park Manor Senior Public School

The second school example is Park Manor, which serves grades 6, 7, and 8 students just outside of Toronto. It is a normal school with the same standard resources of all schools in that district. In Stratosphere (2013c), Fullan profiled the innovations at Park Manor for two reasons. First, they increased scores on the Ontario assessment, which measures higher-order skills, from 42 percent to 83 percent in just four years. Second, they applied what we are calling the three strands of the new pedagogies to shift practice across the entire school. Park Manor’s stated mission is to develop “global critical thinkers collaborating to change the world.” The goal is clear and concise, and everyone shares it. Many schools have inspiring goals, but Park Manor was an early innovator in developing a clear strategy for moving forward. Their approach was to build a collaborative culture that was learning together how to do this work. James Bond, the principal, and Liz Anderson, the learning coordinator, facilitated a process where they and the teachers developed clarity about what learning needed to be like to serve their students. They developed as a staff what they call an accelerated learning framework to guide the transition from goals to action (see Figure 4.5). Over two years, they developed several versions of the framework and still see it as a work in progress. Teachers explained the following:

We begin with the student and then embed the 6Cs into everything. From there, we develop the learning goals, success criteria, productive learning tasks and then make decisions about the most appropriate pedagogy. Only then do we consider the digital tools and resources that will accelerate the learning? (Video at www.michaelfullan.ca) While they are committed to incorporating digital, they learned early on that pedagogy had to be the driver with digital acting as an accelerator. Visitors to the school are always impressed that every student can articulate their learning goals and success criteria, the reasons for the digital or pedagogical strategy they may be using, and how the tools are meeting their learning needs.

Three indicators of success have evolved: first, gains in student achievement have been significant; second, the school uses success criteria and evidence to determine the effectiveness of the framework as it relates to student learning; and third, the notion of developing a learn- ing framework has been taken up by other schools across North America. Schools and districts are seeing the development of a learning framework as a powerful process to build shared language, knowledge, and expertise. The framework serves to clarify the small number of goals, identify the pedagogical practices that need to be in every teacher’s repertoire, and provide a focus for capacity building that gets results.

deep learning

pedacogical parternships

leveraging digital

learning environments

TRANSITION PROGRAM
OISD SPED

CIRCLES

Agenda

• Introduction/ breaking the ice/common ground activity

• School members introduction

• History of Transition

• Facts and Data

• Define Transition Services in Texas

• Introducing CIRCLES/ short video

• CIRCLES Teams

• Guiding Questions

I Introduction

• Form equal sized teams of 3-6 players. Give each team a sheet of paper and a pencil. Tell teams their challenge is to list
everything they can think of that all team members have in common.

• Tell teams they have three minutes to create their lists, so they need to work quickly. To add to the excitement, tell the
teams when they have 1 minute left, thirty seconds, and so forth.

• When time is up, find out which team has the longest list and ask them to read the similarities they listed. Then ask teams
whose similarities have not already been

• How easy was it to discover something in common with another group member?

• • How can similarities draw us closer together? read aloud to read some of theirs.

• Introduction to the Team members

• Define Stakeholders

• Introduce IEP participation measures

History Individuals with

Disabilities

Education Act

IDEA 1990

• Driven by parents

• Concede that children

• given FAPE

• BUT graduating to

• WHAT??

• Transition mandated

• Linkages to agencies

Is based on the individual student’s needs, taking into account the student’s preferences

and interests; and

3. Includes —

• (i.) Instruction;

• (ii.) Related Services;

• (iii.) Community Experiences;

• (iv.) The development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives; and

• (v.) If appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation.

Texas Requirements

All Texas Public School Districts Including Charter Schools
Students Receiving Special Education Services

By

Primary Disability

PEIMS Data 2018-2019

Statewide

Primary Disability

OI OHI AI VI DB ID ED LD SI AU DD TBI NCEC

3,593 76,291 7,028 3,884 310 56,886 31,789
163,68

8
107,66

8 71,951 25 1,325 7,553

Transition planning begins no later than age 14

Through the Years
at OISD

Middle School

• Career Exploration

• General Knowledge of Careers

• Development of

• Social Skills

• Decision making

• Self determination

• Self-advocacy

• Development of work ethic and responsibilities

• Identify preferences, needs, and interests

• Development of Transition Plan (Age 14)

• Graduation options discussion

Through the Years
at OISD

High School

• Career Preparation

• Demonstration of general knowledge of careers

• Implementation of

• Social Skills
• Decision making
• Self determination
• Self-advocacy

• Demonstration of work ethic and responsibilities

• Implementation of Transition Plan

• Graduation Path Determined (end of 8th grade)

OISD Special Education

Vision

OISD Develops responsible citizens by creating equal opportunities for all students through personal relationships that foster innovative leaders prepared to
be successful in a global society.

Demographics of SPED

students

9% of the students in OISD are SPED.

Elementary School: 3% SPED students including Speech Impairments students who are instructional settings.

Ethnicity: 98% White 1.5% Hispanic 0.5 % other races

Middle School/JR High: 3% of the students are SPED.

Race/Ethnicity: 99% White 1% other races

High School: 3% SPED ED. 98% White and 1% Hispanic and 1% other races.

Students for transition services for the 2019-2020 who turned 14 and older

Total students: 91

After High School planning is very important

• Community College, College, or University

• Competitive Employment

• Supported/Integrated/Customized Employment

DATA to Review

The student transition planning supplement

annual IEP documents

transition goals and objectives

parents’ input

informal and formal vocational assessments

student’s interviews

IEP Meeting

SPED Students Transition Services at OISD

• coordinated set of activities

• promotes movement from school to post-school activities

• outcome-oriented process

• individual student’s needs

• student’s preferences and interests

• Examples of Transition Activities

• Practice self-advocacy skills

• Participate in community service, in-school work

• experiences, or job shadowing

Learn shopping, cooking, housekeeping skills

Welcome to the CIRCLES

Multi-Level Approach to Transition Planning for Students with Disabilities

Community
Level

Team

School
Level Team

IEP Team

Community Level Team

Agencies/Service Providers
In Texas/ Southeast Texas:

Texas Workforce

Spindletop Center : A community mental health and intellectual and developmental disabilities center located in Southeast Texas.

Lamar University three branches/Disability centers and services.

• Discuss policy/braid together resources

• Collaborate for service delivery

• Do NOT work directly with students

• Meet 2-4 times/year

APPOINT a Representative to Serve on School Level Team

Community Level
Team

School Level
Team

Work DIRECTLY
with

students/families

Collaborate to
provide services
to INDIVIDUAL

students

See students
from multiple

schools for
transition
planning

Meet Monthly

AND – pre-plan
transition goals
for the IEP team

What is a Team?

group of two or more people who work together interdependently in order to address common needs and to pursue common goals. Over time
and with much hard work, the group will become a team.

Teamwork occurs when 1) roles are clearly understood, 2) goals are clearly understood; 3) structures and practices are understood and agreed
upon; and 4) interdependent relationship.

What is Collaboration?

Collaboration is about delivering results across boundaries. It requires: a) letting go and trusting your partners; b) going beyond your own
tribe; and c) recognizing that you can’t control complex systems. (Archer & Cameron, 2009)

OUR TEAMS: comprised of direct service providers (e.g., case managers, counselors)

Junior High: School counselor, diagnostician, administrator, Sped ed director.

High School: School counselor, diagnostician, administrator, CTE teachers, sped ed director.

The SLT members will be trained in what CIRCLES is, and what is expected from them. Let them know the schedule for the SLT meetings for
the year (developed with Teacher and District Staff input).

Student Level or

IEP Team

School Personnel, Related Services Personnel Specific to Individual Students

• Prepare students to present at the School Level Team meeting

• Bring pre-planning from School-Level Team back to the IEP meeting to

• Write transition goals

Community

Team
IEP Team

School Team

Post School
Outcomes

for Students
with

Disabilities

Sharing Cake

Collaboration is about sharing resources, problem-solving, and
ensuring access to available services.

Why is CIRCLES a good idea?

1. Interagency

collaboration

is supported by research
2. CIRCLES facilitates and enhances the process of transition

planning
3. CIRCLES supports IDEA
4. CIRCLES provides evidence for Indicator 13
5. CIRCLES assists in overcoming barriers to interagency

collaboration

CIRCLES Supports IDEA

• A coordinated set of activities for a student with a disability that is designed to be within a results-oriented process that is focused on
improving the academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child’s movement from school to post-
school activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment),
continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation (300.42(a)(1).

IDEA: School System Accountability For Agency Follow-through

• If a participating agency fails to provide agreed-upon transition services described in the IEP of a student with a disability, the public agency
must reconvene the IEP team to identify alternative strategies to meet the transition objectives for the child set out in the IEP (300.324(c)(1).

• If the transition component indicates that an adult service provider is going to provide a service and the agency fails to follow-through – it is
the responsibility of the IEP team to reconvene and determine a strategy for obtaining an alternative strategy. – CIRCLES makes people feel
more accountable.

It is important to have adult service input PRIOR to making them the “responsible person” on the transition component for a s ervice or activity –
A School Level Team provides this opportunity.

Guiding Questions

Where does the student want to go?

• The desired post-school outcomes of the student are stated, including

• Post secondary education/training

• Employment

• Community living

• Residential

• Participation

• Recreation/leisure

What will the student learn and be able to do?

Within this multi-year plan, the IEP team must decide what specific transition activities in which the student will participate each year to achieve

each year to achieve the post-school outcomes.

• Team

• Problem Solving

• Shared Decision Making

• Student/Family/School/Community

• Families as Equal Partners
• Recognizing the Critical Role of Families in All Transition Activities.

Thank You for Being a Part of My CIRCLES

References

Archer. D., and Cameron, C. (2014). Collaborative Leadership: Building Relationships, Handling Conflict and Sharing Control (2nd ed.). Human Resource Management

International Digest, 22

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

Povenmire-Kirk, T. Diegelmann, K.M., Test, D.W., Aspel, N., and Everson, J.M. (2015). CIRCLES: An Implementation Guide. Retrieved from

https://circles.uncc.edu/

Texas Education Agency (2018). Special Education Reports. Retrieved from

https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/adhocrpt/adser.html

https://circles.uncc.edu/

https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/adhocrpt/adser.html

Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 42 (2015

)

51–65
DOI:10.3233/JVR-140723
IOS Press

51

Implementing CIRCLES: A new model
for interagency collaboration in transiti

on

planni

ng

Tiana Povenmire-Kirka,∗, Karen Diegelmanna , Kim Crumpa , Crystalyn Schnorrb, David Testa ,
Claudia Flowersa and Nellie Aspela
a University of North Carolina, Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA
bUniversity of North Carolina, Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA

Revised/Accepted February 2014

Abstract.
BACKGROUND: Transition planning services for students with disabilities are mandated by IDEA 2004, but getting all the right
folks to the table to plan for this transition is difficult to accomplish.
OBJECTIVE: CIRCLES is a new model for interagency collaboration in transition planning. It includes three levels of teams,
working together to identify specific post-school goals for students with disabilities, and developing a series of steps to help each
student achieve them.
METHODS: This study utilized focus groups of key members of the different levels of teams involved to identify successes and
challenges in the first year of implementation of this new model.
RESULTS: The CIRCLES model of service delivery improved agency members’ sense of collaboration and awareness of services
available in their districts.
CONCLUSIONS: Although more research is needed, CIRCLES as a service delivery model increases interagency collaboration
for transition planning for students with disabilities.

Keywords: Transition, transition planning, youth with disabilities, interagency collaboration

1. Introduction

Special Education services are intended to provide
individualized support to students with disabilities as
they work their way through the education system; o

ne

way to measure the success of these services is by
evaluating the post-school outcomes for students with
disabilities. Currently, post-school outcomes for youth
with disabilities are measured by level of engagement
in three areas: (a) postsecondary education or training,

∗Address for correspondence: Dr. Tiana Povenmire-Kirk, Depart-
ment of Special Education and Child Development, UNC Charlotte,
9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28112, USA. Tel.: +1 707
687 5391; Fax: +1 704 687 1625; E-mail: tpovenmi@uncc.edu.

(b) employment, and (c) if necessary, independent liv-
ing (US Department of Education, 2004). The transition
from the special education system to this adult world
of work, postsecondary education, and independent liv-
ing is critical to the post-school success of youth with
disabilities.

The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act
(IDEA, 2004) requires a written plan outlining services
and activities for transitioning youth with disabilities
from high school to adult life be included in the indi-
vidualized education program (IEP) no later than the
student’s 16th birthday. IDEA 2004 defines transition as
a coordinated set of activities that facilitate the child’s
movement from high school to adult life and address

1052-2263/15/$27.50 © 2015 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved

mailto:tpovenmi@uncc.edu

52 T. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Implementing CIRCLES

areas of: training, education, employment, commu-
nity integration, adult services, and independent living.
IDEA 2004 further dictates the transition planning pro-
cess should be based on the child’s individual strengths
and needs, and should include representatives from any
agency likely to provide adult services to the student
during or after transitioning out of school. Each stu-
dent’s post-school goals serve as a road map – we need
to know where the student is going if we are going to
plan how to get there. Consequently, post-school goals
should be written prior to developing the remainder of
the IEP, to ensure academic experiences can support
both the educational goals and post-school goals of stu-
dents with disabilities. IDEA (2004) further requires
schools “must invite to the IEP meeting a representative
of any participating agency that is likely to be responsi-
ble for providing or paying for transition services” [34
CFR §300.321(b)(3)]. Inviting agencies to the IEP does
not let schools off the hook for agreed-upon services.
In the event that a given agency fails to provide services
promised, the school must “reconvene the IEP meeting
and identify alternative strategies to meet the transition
objectives” [34 CFR §300.324(c)(1)]. It is clear, then,
that IDEA requires adult service provider involvement
in planning and providing transition services, and that
the school is ultimately responsible for following up and
ensuring all services deemed necessary are provided.

Interagency collaboration is defined here as a process
through which the whole is greater than the sum of the
parts; agency representatives come together to achieve,
collectively, more than they could each achieve working
independently. Bruner (1991) defines collaboration as:

… a process to reach goals that cannot be achieved
acting singly (or, at a minimum, cannot be reached as
efficiently). As a process collaboration is a means to an
end, not an end in itself. The desired end is more com-
prehensive and appropriate services for families that
improve family outcomes. (Bruner, 1991)

Interagency collaboration has been identified as an
evidence-based predictor of improved education and
employment outcomes for students with disabilities
(Test, Mazzotti et al., 2009), and is considered a sub-
stantiated transition practice (Landmark, Ju, & Zhang,
2010; Kohler, 1993). However, few models exist for
schools to use to increase interagency collaboration.

The purpose of this article is to describe the current
practice for involving outside service providers in the
transition process and introduce a new service deliv-
ery model for encouraging interagency collaboration
and providing transition services to achieve the high-
est post-school outcomes possible. This new model is

called Communicating Interagency Relationships and
Collaborative Linkages for Exceptional Students (CIR-
CLES). The data reported herein are part of an ongoing
formative program evaluation of the CIRCLES model
of service delivery. We will review current research on
interagency collaboration and describe implementation
of the CIRCLES model. Finally, we review focus group
data from agency stakeholders and make recommenda-
tions moving forward.

1.1. Collaboration research

In addition to federal legislation requiring agency
involvement in the transition planning process, research
on best practices supports interagency collaboration
as a service delivery model for transition planning.
Interagency collaboration has been defined as “a broad
concept that encompasses formal and informal rela-
tionships between schools and adult agencies in which
resources are shared to achieve common transition
goals” (Noonan, Morningstar, & Erickson, 2008). Test,
Fowler, White, Richter, and Walker (2009) described
interagency collaboration as a “collaborative service
delivery system to involve community agencies, busi-
nesses, and organizations” (p. 24). Noonan, McCall,
Zheng, and Gaumer Erickson (2012), investigated the
level of collaboration and the extent to which col-
laboration capacities and strategies affected change
in collaboration levels for a successful state level
interagency collaboration team. The found positive
characteristics of interagency capacity to include: (a)
relationship building within team, (b) encouraging
members from a variety of organizations to participate,
(c) a commitment to time for meetings and projects,
and (d) a sense of cooperative leadership. Collaborative
strategies which affected team collaboration included
mutual training and information sharing across agen-
cies, knowledge of each agency through site visits, and
designing and participating in group projects.

As early as 1995, Bullis, Davis, Bull, and Johnson
found students who received assistance from 3 to 6
adult service providers were more likely to be engaged
in post-school employment or education than students
who only received assistance from 0 to 2 providers.
Repetto, Webb, Garvan, and Washington (2002) also
found interagency collaboration for students with dis-
abilities in high school was positively correlated with
post-school educational success. In a study examining
effective practices for developing interagency collab-
oration, Noonan, Morningstar, and Erickson (2008)
described interagency collaboration as a critical link to

T. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Implementing CIRCLES 53

both post-school employment and postsecondary edu-
cation for students with disabilities. Additionally, Test,
Fowler, White, et al. (2009) found interagency collab-
oration to be an evidence-based transition practice for
increasing school completion.

In a review of literature examining effective voca-
tional rehabilitation services, Fleming, Del Valle, Kim,
and Leahy (2012) reviewed 10 studies using inter-
agency collaboration, and noted it was one of the
most often used best practices; they highlighted the
ability to reallocate funds, learn from other team mem-
bers, and share resources as some of the advantages.
Test, Mazzotti, et al. (2009), in a systematic review
of correlational studies examining secondary transition
predictors from 1984 to 2009, found interagency collab-
oration was an evidence-based predictor of post-school
success in both education and employment for students
with disabilities. More recently, interagency collabora-
tion has been identified as part of an effective transition
plan for students with autism spectrum disorders (Lee
& Carter, 2012; Roberts, 2010); while Balcazar, Taylor-
Ritzler, and Dimfl (2012) showed increased enrollment
in postsecondary education using an interagency collab-
oration model for students from low-income minority
backgrounds. With the dearth of published research on
effective interagency collaboration interventions, the
Council of Exceptional Children’s Division of Career
Development and Transition has released a position
paper on evidence-based practices and predictors for
successful transition. This paper calls for the need
of future research to promote interagency collabora-
tion interventions in schools and districts (Mazzotti,
Rowe, Cameto, Test, & Morningstar, 2013). This sen-
timent for increased research in the area of interagency
collaboration is echoed by other researchers focusing
on students with disabilities (Shaw & Dukes, 2013;
Test, Fowler, Richter, et al., 2009; Test, Mazzotti et
al., 2009), postsecondary education for students with
severe disabilities (Grigal et al., 2011) and autism (Lee
& Carter, 2012; Roberts, 2010), as well as rehabilitation
counselors (Oertle, Plotner, & Trach, 2013).

Interagency collaboration is not only federally man-
dated, it is a research-based practice, supported by over
a decade of findings. It is essential to bring the right
agencies to the table during the transition planning
phase, and to enable these agencies to collaborate to
deliver services in order to ensure the best possible post-
school outcomes for students with disabilities. In order
to understand what makes CIRCLES different, we must
first discuss the current model of agency involvement
in transition planning.

1.2. Current model of service delivery in transition
– catch as catch can

In many school districts, the current practice for
getting agency involvement in the transition plan-
ning process is for the special education teacher to
invite, via telephone or email, every different agency
representative to each individual IEP meeting. Depend-
ing on the size of the caseload for a given special
education teacher, this can mean hundreds to thou-
sands of phone calls and emails a year, merely in
the attempt to get agency representatives to show up.
For agency representatives who could provide transi-
tion services, it is frequently impossible to attend all
of the IEP meetings for all potential clients within
their service area. If agency representatives are able
to attend, this can mean sitting through hours of IEP
meetings about educational planning, which, although
interesting, often has little bearing on services they
are able to provide. Furthermore, agencies often are
unable to attend the entire IEP meeting, resulting in
IEP meetings being segmented according to when
agency representatives can show up, disrupting the
flow and preventing the transition component from
being crafted at the beginning and guiding the devel-
opment of the IEP. Additionally, the special education
teacher often only contacts those agencies with whom
she or he is familiar and those s/he feels are likely
to attend. As a result, current model of interagency
collaboration in transition planning is exhausting and
inefficient at best, and ineffective and anti-collaborative
at worst.

1.3. CIRCLES, a new model of service delivery

The CIRCLES Project was made possible by a
grant from the Institute for Education Sciences as
part of this grant, a multi-method research study is
currently comparing the post-school outcomes of stu-
dents with disabilities who receive services through this
new model of service delivery with the outcomes for
students who received services through the standard
model. CIRCLES makes the work of both school and
agency staff more effective and efficient. The CIRCLES
model is based upon the conceptual model pictured in
Fig. 1. CIRCLES is based on a general theory of change
built on collaboration theory (Wood & Gray, 1991)
and self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000;
Wehmeyer, 2004). The logic is that when interagency
collaboration occurs in partnership with teaching, stu-
dents self -determination skills, student involvement

54 T. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Implementing CIRCLES

in school level and IEP team meetings will increase,
which leads to improved in-school and post-school
outcomes.

In the CIRCLES model of service delivery, this the-
ory of change occurs across three team levels and each
team serves a specific purpose. The three teams are the
Community Level Team, School-Level Team, and IEP
Team. The activities of each team and their relationships
to one another are illustrated in Fig. 2 and described
below.

1.3.1. Community level team
The overarching Community Level Team (CLT) is

comprised of administrators and supervisors of each of
the adult service providers and outside agencies that
might be able to provide support for transition from
high school to adult life. This team could include: Voca-
tional Rehabilitation, Department of Social Services,
Health Department, The Arc, Easter Seals, Autism
Society, residential service providers, and any other
service providers in the area. The CLT is organized

Fig. 1. CIRCLES theory of change.

Fig. 2. CIRCLES.

T. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Implementing CIRCLES 55

and convened by district-level school staff (e.g., special
education director, program coordinator, transition spe-
cialist). These administrators meet two to four times per
year and work on issues at the policy level; they iden-
tify gaps and overlaps in services, and work together
to change policy and practice to better serve students
with disabilities. The CLT works to identify and address
areas of need in their community; this can result in
changes in policies, services, budget allocations, or it
can take the form of community outreach and education.
One of the key roles of members of the CLT is to appoint
a direct service representative from their agencies to
serve on the School-Level Team; this administrative-
level buy in is vital for the success of the process.

1.3.2. School Level Team
The School-Level Team (SLT) is what makes

CIRCLES different than other models that utilize com-
munity transition teams. The SLT is comprised of
direct service providers (case managers, counselors,
care coordinators, etc.) from each agency represented
on the CLT. The SLT members are the people spe-
cial education teachers would traditionally call or ema

il

with invitations to IEP meetings in the current model
described above. Instead of inviting these representa-
tives to attend each IEP meeting, district-level school
staff invite them to attend one meeting a month (during
the school year), in which they see multiple students and
solely address post-school goals in the areas of transi-
tion, specifically: postsecondary education or training,
employment, and independent living. Special education
teachers prepare their students, individually, to present
information about themselves including their goals and
needs to SLT members. Students come in, one at a time,
and use technology (e.g., PowerPoint, Voki, Wobook,
GoAnimate) to describe their strengths, areas of need,
and post-school goals. Student presentations typically
take less than five minutes. For the remaining time (20 –
40 minutes), members of the SLT talk with the student,
his or her family, special education teacher, and one
another to determine the best way to deliver transition
services to each student. In addition to giving the stu-
dent, parent, and special education teacher a personal
contact to associate with each agency, the SLT format
also allows for appointments to be made and questions
to be answered by the agency members. Families can
also discuss any general needs the family may have as a
whole. Agencies negotiate with one another about who
will provide which services in order to create the most
comprehensive plan to meet the majority of the needs
of the student and his or her family. Because the SLT’s

main purpose is to help develop transition goals and
services for the student with the disability, the minutes
of the SLT meeting go back to the IEP team with the
special education teacher, the student, and his or her
parents.

1.3.3. IEP team
The IEP team is the final level in the CIRCLES multi-

level approach. After the SLT meeting, teachers take
the minutes and decisions made at the SLT back to the
IEP meeting and write the transition component based
on the services agreed upon at the SLT. This process
enables the IEP team to write the other components
of the IEP with the end goals of the student in mind.
Because the district level school staff are responsible for
convening the CLT and SLT meetings, the time special
education teachers would typically spend inviting folks
to IEP meetings is freed up and they are able to utilize
that time for preparing students for SLT and IEP meet-
ings. The assessments and interviews with students that
go into developing their presentations to the SLT are all
part of standard operating procedures for preparing for
the transition component of any IEP meeting. The only
activity that may not be part of standard procedures is
the presentation of the technology tools to help students
present. However, since many districts are requiring stu-
dents to present a portfolio their senior year, and many
of these can use the students’ SLT presentations as a
starting point for this larger portfolio presentation. In
some schools, teachers use the technology their students
use as part of CIRCLES as “technology instruction”
needed to meet criteria associated with graduation.

1.4. Description of project and recruitment

The model of service delivery used in CIRCLES was
developed 20 years ago in a rural county in North Car-
olina and has been used successfully during that time;
results from this one county implementation have been
previously published under the name TASSEL (Aspel,
Bettis, Quinn, Wood, & Test, 1999). Graduates from
the TASSEL program who left school in 1995, 1996,
and 1997 experienced positive post school outcomes:
(a) 70% reported being employed since leaving school,
and (b) 33% reported enrolling in post-secondary edu-
cation programs (Aspel, Bettis, Test, & Wood, 1998).
The founder of CIRCLES collaborated with researchers
at a state university to develop a grant for the Institute of
Education Sciences (IES). The current study and CIR-
CLES implementation is funded by a four-year Goal 3
grant from IES. The research study involves a total of

56 T. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Implementing CIRCLES

48 high schools in 15 counties/districts, in two differ-
ent states. Of these 48 high schools, 24 have begun the
CIRCLES model for transition planning, and 24 will
continue business as usual until year four, when they
will be trained in the CIRCLES method. Due to the
random assignment of these schools to either the inter-
vention (experimental) or the business as usual (control
setting), only 12 of the 15 districts have schools in the
intervention condition. At the time of this writing, we
are halfway through our third year of implementation,
all participating districts have been trained in the model
and each intervention school has held a School Level
Team meeting.

1.4.1. Sample recruitment and assignment
We recruited schools by sending a letter (via email)

to special education directors and transition coordi-
nators of 38 districts in North and South Carolina,
requesting that they contact us if interested. The
grant criteria required only that participants be pub-
lic schools, and that they not be special purpose or
self-contained schools. Our final pool of participants
included 48 high schools from 15 districts/counties
in North and South Carolina. Each school was then
randomly assigned into either the intervention (exper-
imental) or the business-as-usual (control) condition
using a computer program to generate the random
assignment, resulting in 24 schools for each condi-
tion. The schools in the experimental condition received
training on the implementation of CIRCLES in years
one and two, and significant technical assistance and
support with implementation in year two. In year
four, the remaining 24 schools will be trained in
the CIRCLES method of service delivery. We are
collecting data on in school achievement, in-school
problem behavior, self-determination, and post-school
outcomes, along with social validity data, consumer
satisfaction, and interagency collaboration data (see
Table 1).

1.4.2. Focus groups
In order to train 24 schools in the intervention con-

dition, we devised a staggered start plan, wherein we
trained the three districts closest to us in September
of year one, a bulk of districts in February, and the
remaining districts in September of year two. This
staggered start enabled us to fine tune our training
and technical assistance with the districts in the clos-
est proximity before taking everything to scale of our
study. As a result, the first three districts experienced
almost a full school year of intervention prior to the

training of the last districts to enter the study. Table 2
illustrates the post-school outcomes data from 2012
for the first two districts, and from 2010 (most recent
available) for the third district. These data must be care-
fully interpreted when considering CIRCLES, because
not all students who receive special education services
will be brought to CIRCLES. In fact, CIRCLES tar-
gets students with lower levels of academic and social
functioning, with the highest levels of need. However,
any student with a disability who experiences need for
involvement from multiple agencies in order to achieve
a successful transition to adult life may be brought to
CIRCLES.

As part of our initial, and formative, project evalu-
ation efforts, we conducted focus groups with agency
and district personnel from each of these three districts
at the end of the first school year. We did not invite stu-
dents or parents to these groups due to the newness of
CIRCLES and the fairly low numbers of students who
went through CIRCLES across each district in year one.
We chose focus groups to facilitate our data collection
by encouraging discussion between key stakeholders
about the process of implementing CIRCLES because
we believed that these discussions would yield richer
data than individual interviews alone (Morgan, 1996).

2. Method

We invited district personnel responsible for conven-
ing CLT and SLT meetings and any agency personnel
who served on either team to attend two hour focus
groups in each district. We had an average of 10 par-
ticipants per focus group, for a total of 30 participants
across all three meetings. Thirty of 37 potential partic-
ipants attended these focus groups; those who did not
attend included seven agency representatives who were
unable to attend: Three from the first district, four from
the second and none from the third. The first three dis-
tricts were relatively rural districts, and as a result, many
of their agency representatives served on both the SLT
and the CLT. These focus groups were facilitated by the
first and second authors, and audio recorded. The audio
recordings were then transcribed into text. The ques-
tions we used to guide these group discussions appear
in Table 3.

2.1. Data analysis

Immediately after each focus group, the facilita-
tors wrote field notes, identifying themes found to be

T. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Implementing CIRCLES 57

T
ab

le
1

C
IR

C
L

E
S

da
ta

by
do

m
ai

n,
m

ea
su

re
s,

an
d

co
ll

ec
ti

on

D
om

ai
n

of
In

te
re

st
M

ea
su

re
s

A
bo

ut
W

ho
m

?

W

ho
C

ol
le

ct
s?

W
he

n
C

ol
le

ct
ed

?

In
-S

ch
oo

l
A

ch
ie

ve
m

en
t

S
tu

de
nt

G
PA

G
PA

ca
lc

ul
at

ed
by

P
ow

er
S

ch
oo

l
In

di
vi

du
al

S
tu
de
nt

S
ch

oo
l

P
er

so
nn

el
A

nn
ua

ll
y,

Ju
ne

N
C

E
nd

of
C

ou
rs

e
(E

O
C

)
S

co
re

s
an

d
A

ch
ie
ve
m
en
t

le
ve

l
N

or
th

C
ar

ol
in

a
E

O
C

T
es

ts
In

di
vi
du
al
S
tu
de
nt
S
ch
oo
l
P
er
so
nn
el
A
nn
ua
ll
y,
Ju
ne

D
ro

po
ut

R
at

e
N

C
D

efi
ni

ti
on

of
“D

ro
po

ut
:

pe
r

S
P

P
/A

P
R

In
di

ca
to

r
2”

S
ch

oo
l-

w
id

e/
A

l

l
S

tu
de

nt
s

of
In
te
re

st
S

ch
oo

l
P

er
so

nn
el

A
nn

ua
ll

y,
Ju

ne

G
ra

du
at

io
n

R
at

e
#

of
st

ud
en

ts
gr

ad
ua

ti
ng

w
it

h:
S

ch
oo

l-
W

id
e/

A
ll

S
tu
de
nt

s
of

S
ch
oo
l
P
er
so
nn
el
A
nn
ua
ll
y,
Ju
ne

•R
eg

ul
ar

di
pl

om
a

In
te

r

e
st

•C
er

ti
fi

ca
te

of
A

ch
ie
ve
m
en
t

or
•G

ra
du

at
io

n
C

er
ti

fi
ca

t

e
S

P
P

/A
P

R
In

di
ca

to
r

1
O

n-
T

ra
ck

S
ta

tu
s

%
of

st
ud

en
ts

S
ch
oo
l-

W
id

e/
A
ll
S
tu
de

nt
of

S
ch
oo
l
P
er
so
nn
el
A
nn
ua
ll
y,
Ju
ne

•F
ai

li
ng

on
e

or
m

or
e

co
re

su
bj

ec
ts

or
In

te
re

st
•A

cc
um

ul
at

in
g

fe
w

er
cr

ed
it

s
th

an
th

e
nu

m
be

r
re

qu
ir

ed
fo

r
pr

om
ot

io
n

in
th

ei
r

gr
ad

e
le

ve
l

In
-S
ch
oo
l
P

ro
bl

em
B

eh
av

io
r

%
of

:
W

ho
le

S
ch
oo
l
S
ch
oo
l
P
er
so
nn
el
A
nn
ua
ll
y,
Ju
ne

•S
tu

de
nt

su
sp

en
si

on
s

•S
tu
de
nt

A
bs

en
ce

s
•O

ffi
ce

di
sc

ip
li

ne
re

fe
rr

al
s

In
-S
ch
oo
l
S

el
f-

D
et

er
m

in
at

io
n
S
tu
de
nt

s’
L

ev
el

of
P

ar
ti

ci
pa

ti
on

in
IE

P
M

ee
ti

ng
s

IE
P

P
ar

ti
ci

pa
ti

on
M

ea
su

re
:

In
di

vi
du

al
S

tu
de
nt
s

S
pe

ci
al

E
du

ca
ti

on
T

ea
ch

er
Im

m
ed

ia
te

ly
af

te
r

IE
P

m
ee

ti
ng

1.
D

id
th

e
st
ud
en

t
le

ad
th

e
IE

P
m

ee
ti

ng
?

2.
R

at
e

le
ve

lo
f

pa
rt

ic
ip

at
io

n
(0

=
no

ne
,5

=
fu

ll
)

S
el

f-
D

et
er

m
in

at
io

n
A

IR
S

el
f

D
et
er
m
in
at
io
n

S
ca

le
s

In
di
vi
du
al
S
tu
de
nt
s
S
tu
de
nt
an
d
S
pe
ci
al
E
du
ca
ti
on
T
ea
ch

er
A

nn
ua
ll
y,

A
pr

il
S
tu
de
nt
s’
L
ev
el
of
P
ar
ti
ci
pa
ti
on

i

n
S

ch
oo

l
L

ev
el

T
ea

m
M

ee
ti
ng
s

S
L

T
P

ar
ti
ci
pa
ti
on

M
ea

su
re

:
In

di
vi
du
al
S
tu
de
nt

s
E

ve
ry

m
em

be
r

of
th

e
S

L
T

m
ee
ti
ng

A
t

ea
ch
S
L

T
m

ee
ti
ng
1.
D
id
th
e
st
ud
en
t
le
ad
th
e
S
L
T
m
ee
ti
ng

?
2.

R
at
e
le

ve
lo

f
pa

rt
ic

ip
at

io
n

(0
=

no
ne

,5
=

fu
ll

)

58 T. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Implementing CIRCLES

T
ab
le
1

(C
o

n
ti

n
u

ed
)

D
om
ai
n
of
In
te
re
st
M
ea
su
re
s
A
bo
ut
W
ho
m

?
W

ho
C
ol
le
ct
s?
W
he
n
C
ol
le
ct
ed
?

P
os

t-
S

ch
oo

l
O

ut
co

m
es

N
C

’s
In

di
ca
to
r

14
D

at
a

%
of
st
ud
en
ts

no
lo

ng
er

in
sc

ho
ol

,h
ad

IE
P

s
in

ef
fe

ct
w

he
n

th
ey

le
ft

an
d,

w
it

hi
n

on
e

ye
ar

of
le

av
in

g,
w

er
e:

S
ch

oo
l/

S
ta

te
In

di
ca
to
r

14
,S

ta
te

E
du
ca
ti

on
al

A
ge

nc
y,

P
ro

je
ct

S
ta

ff

A
nn
ua
ll
y,
Ju

ne
/J

ul
y

1.
E

nr
ol

le
d

in
hi

gh
er

ed
2.

E
nr

ol
le

d
in

hi
gh

er
ed

O
R

co
m

pe
ti

ti
ve

ly
em

pl
oy

ed
3.

E
nr
ol
le
d
in
hi
gh
er
ed

or
ot

he
r

po
st

se
co

nd
ar

y
tr

ai
ni

ng
,o

r
co

m
pe

ti
ti

ve
ly

em
pl

oy
ed

or
in

so
m

e
ot

he
r
em
pl

oy
m

en
t

S
oc

ia
l

V
al

id
it

y
O

ut
co
m
es
S
ta

ke
ho

ld
er

s’
P

er
ce

pt
io

ns
of

F
ea

si
bi

li
ty

an
d

E
ff

ec
ti

ve
ne

ss
of

C
IR
C
L
E
S

F
oc

us
G

ro
up

s
C

on
su

m
er

S
at

is
fa

ct
io

n
S

ur
ve

y

s
T

ea
ch

er
s

A
ge

nc
y

M
em

be
rs

S
tu
de
nt

s
P

ar
en

ts
P

ro
je

ct
S

ta
ff

A
nn
ua
ll

y,
A

pr
il

/M
ay

T
re

at
m

en
t

F
id

el
it

y
A

dh
er

en
ce
an
d

C
om

pl
ia

nc
e

of
P

ro
gr

am
C

om
po

ne
nt

s
T

re
at

m
en

t
F

id
el

it
y

C
he

ck
li

st
T

ea
m

M
em
be
rs
P
ro
je
ct
an
d
S
ch
oo
l
S
ta

ff
A

ft
er

ev
er

y
C

L
T
an
d
S
L

T
E

xp
os

ur
e

of
A

m
ou

nt
of
P
ro

gr
am

C
on

te
nt

D
el

iv
er

ed
P

ar
ti
ci
pa

nt
R

es
po

ns
iv

en
es

s
P
ro
gr

am
D

if
fe

re
nt

ia
ti

on
S

tu
de

nt
D

em
og

ra
ph

ic
In

fo
A

ge
,G

ra
de

,G
en

de
r,

R
ac

e,
an

d
D

is
ab

il
it

y
In

fo
rm

at
io
n
S
tu
de

nt
s’

IE
P

F
il

es
,P

ow
er

S
ch
oo
l
F
il

es
In

di
vi
du
al
S
tu
de
nt

s
S

ch
oo
l
P
er
so
nn
el
A
nn
ua
ll

y,
M

ay
-J

ul
y
In
te

ra
ge

nc
y

C
ol

la
bo

ra
ti

on
In

te
ra

ge
nc

y
C

ol
la

bo
ra

ti
on
In
te
ra
ge
nc
y
C
ol
la
bo
ra
ti
on
S
ur
ve

y
S

L
T
an
d
C
L

T
M

em
be

rs
P

ro
je
ct
S
ta
ff
A
nn
ua
ll
y,
Ju
ne
/J
ul
y

T. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Implementing CIRCLES 59

Table 2
CIRCLES districts post-school outcomes 1 year after graduation –

baseline data∗∗

District Percent of students Percent of students Percent
enrolled in a post- enrolled in of students

secondary education higher not engaged
program or employed education

A 72 42 28
B 62 31 38
C∗ 63 29 37
∗Districts A & B had PSO data from 2012; the most recent data
available for district C is from 2010. ∗∗These data must be carefully
interpreted when considering CIRCLES, because not all students who
receive special education services will be brought to CIRCLES. In
fact, CIRCLES targets students with lower levels of academic and
social functioning, with the highest levels of need. However, any
student with a disability who experiences need for involvement from
multiple agencies in order to achieve a successful transition to adult
life may be brought to CIRCLES.

Table 3
Focus group questions for agency personnel

Question

What is the primary benefit you get from coming to team meetings?
Describe your experience with the Community Level Team

(for those who served on the CLT)
Tell me about your experiences preparing for and serving

on the School Level Team (if applicable)
Describe how the events from the School Level Team,

such as student needs for services, impacted practice
If you could change anything about your experience with

CIRCLES, what would it be?

salient from the meetings. After all three focus groups
were completed, we generated a list of themes; using
grounded theory, we used data from all three groups to
identify key themes, or codes, to add to our list, and
grouped these themes into similar concepts (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). Once we had described concepts, the
second and third authors worked independently to code
the entire transcript of each focus group, by bracketing
transcribed sections of the focus groups that spoke to
a given theme, or “code,” and labeling them with the
abbreviation assigned to that theme. After independent
coding was complete, the second and third authors met
several times to achieve inter-rater agreement on given
codes for each section of text. Codes were then entered
into AtlasTi, a qualitative data analysis program, and
reports on each individual codes were generated. The
second and third authors revisited the code reports and
generated categories based on the concepts. From these
categories, the themes of challenges and successes of
CIRCLES implementation were developed, with sub-
categories under each primary theme.

3. Results

After our final analysis, data from our focus groups
fell into two categories: (a) challenges and barriers, and
(b) successes of CIRCLES implementation. These two
primary categories, along with the sub-categories that
emerged are described below.

3.1. Challenges and barriers

The category of challenges and barriers was divided
into five sub-categories (a) awareness among agency
and school staff, (b) preparing students and families for
SLT meetings, (c) provider agencies need for student
information prior to meeting time, (d) issues with follow
up after SLT meetings, and (e) practical issues.

3.1.1. Awareness among agency and school staff
Prior to commencing CIRCLES, there was a general

lack of awareness among both agency representatives
and school staff about what services were available
within a given district. The lack of knowledge across
agencies was a barrier to collaboration between service
providers. Furthermore, teachers did not know what ser-
vices were available and, using the old service delivery
model, did not know who to invite to IEP meetings,
because they lacked the knowledge of what services
could be provided for their students. The CIRCLES
model of service delivery addresses both of these issues
by bringing agencies to the table to collaborate and
discuss the services they can provide, and by educat-
ing teachers who bring their students to SLT meetings.
However, there still exists a need to educate teachers
across the districts and across grade levels about ser-
vices available in each district. Many providers have
a long waiting list (3–5½ years) to receive services. If
teachers of younger students are made aware of these
services, they can direct parents to get their children on
waiting lists earlier, and by the time the student is of the
age that services are needed, they will have progressed
through the list. One agency provider stated it best:

I think if we can get the parents in at that meeting
when they’re freshman then if we can get them signing
up for the innovations waiver . . . , we can get them
hooked up with somebody with the Arc…, who says we
can help you fill out some of this paperwork and then
by the time we see them again to touch base as juniors
they’ll be in much better condition.

Initially, agency members in all three counties strug-
gled to understand their agency’s role in the CIRCLES
process. Because this was a first time for everyone

60 T. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Implementing CIRCLES

involved, we all figured this out as we moved on. How
each agency could participate in CIRCLES was clari-
fied after the first SLT meeting in each district. This is
evident in the comments of one provider:

If we’re not at the table then we may be sending
some of these students down the wrong path. This is
an opportunity to collaborate and we want people, stu-
dents, people that need our services to know who we
are and what services we do have to provide so that’s
sort of become how we feel like we fit in.

Each district approached the need to educate teach-
ers on what services are available in different ways,
but the CLT was involved in every effort in every dis-
trict. Some CLTs chose to deliver a panel presentation
to all teachers from the district, while others chose to
give this information to school leaders, and enable them
to disseminate the information to their staff at each
school.

3.1.2. Preparing students and families for SLT
meetings

Equally important to the successful implementation
of CIRCLES was preparing teachers, students, and
families for the SLT meeting. Initially, some districts
struggled with teacher buy-in to the CIRCLES process.
Some teachers did not seem to view CIRCLES as some-
thing that would help their students. Across the board,
once teachers experienced an SLT meeting, the bene-
fits to their students, as well as their role in preparing
students for the SLT was clarified. Teacher buy-in was
significantly higher after the first SLT meeting.

Each district approached the challenges of establish-
ing teacher buy-in differently. The district staff of one
district videotaped the SLT meetings from schools with
high teacher buy-in and played them for teachers of
schools who had less of an understanding of the impor-
tance of the process. Another district held repeated
teacher training sessions at each school. The third dis-
trict trained all of their teachers at one 4-hour mandatory
training.

Preparing families for the SLT presented a differ-
ent challenge. It is essential to have someone at the
SLT meetings to support the students. Too often as stu-
dents get older, their parents no longer attend IEP or
transition meetings. If family members cannot attend
the SLT to support students, it would benefit students
to have an adult friend, advocate, or other supportive
adult there on their behalf. Each district’s CLT was
tackling the issue of how to get information about
waivers, waiting lists, and how to navigate the system
and process to students and families in their community.

These efforts are taking the form of resource fairs at
schools and local community centers, mobile outreach
units that travel to churches to present information to
neighborhoods, and by creating and disseminating par-
ent resource brochures. Thinking outside the box, one
agency member commented, “ . . . what we need to do
possibly is do that mobile blood van kind of thing where
we’re going out to the housing authority offices and
different housing places . . . ”

3.1.3. Provider agencies’ need for student
information prior to meeting time

Agency providers reported needing more informa-
tion about students prior to SLT meetings.

Being able to see . . . each diagnosis, kind of what’s
going on and getting a clear understanding of what the
needs are for that individual vs. trying to get out of
them you know, what are the areas you’re having trouble
in, you know, different diagnosis qualifies for different
services so it all depends on you know, that part?

If agency members know about students prior to each
SLT meeting, the representatives of agencies already
serving a student can bring information to help guide
the development of an appropriate transition plan. In
addition, agencies that can provide services related to
students’ interests or needs would be better prepared for
the meeting. The need for agencies to have this informa-
tion was offset by the valid concern of school staff for
protecting the privacy of their students. One suggestion
from all three districts was to obtain a release for sharing
information back and forth between schools and agency
providers prior to the meeting. One challenge was get-
ting permission to share information forms signed by
parents/guardians and returned to school in a timely
fashion.

3.1.4. Following up from the SLT meeting
Another challenge identified by agency and school

personnel was following up from the SLT meetings.
Across all three districts, there were challenges with
follow up at the level of parents, special education
teachers, and agency service providers. There was also
an issue of communication; students and families heard
at the SLT meeting about services they may qualify for
through a given agency, and assumed that they were
automatically going to receive these services, but failed
to make an intake appointment at the agency to start a
case to receive services. Students and families, alike,
often needed additional help to access supports they
needed from agencies.

T. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Implementing CIRCLES 61

. . . it’s not just putting the information in their hands
but it’s walking them through that information that’s
there, walking them through the paperwork they may
need to complete to access services or to get on wait
lists or whatever those things may be.

All three districts are developing plans to support stu-
dents, parents, and teachers in following through with
accessing services. There is a need for each district
to develop a system for following up that assigns the
responsibility to an individual or group and provides
timelines for completion of follow up activities.

3.1.5. Practical issues
Practical issues related to scheduling and SLT meet-

ings running over their allotted time arose in all three
districts. A greater issue that presented itself was trans-
portation, which seemed to be an overarching problem,
whether it was getting students and parents to the SLT
or to other school meetings designed to disseminate
information about services the agencies provide. Sug-
gestions were made to (a) look for volunteer groups
such as the faith community, who may be able to provide
transportation or (b) taking the meetings to the parents.
Many of the district’s CLTs have adopted transporta-
tion as a future area of focus, explained by one agency
member, below.

Addressing the transportation issue as far as for the
school level team meetings and is getting parents where
they need to be and students too if they’re folks that
have already exited for all intents and purposes and
that’s what I’ve got as our big goals for next year as a
community level team.

3.2. Successes of CIRCLES implementation

The category of successes was divided into four sub-
categories (a) networking and collaboration between
agencies and school personnel, (b) improved commu-
nication about services, (c) empowering students and
parents by having them lead the meetings, and (d) help-
ing change students’ lives.

3.2.1. Networking and collaboration between
agencies and school personnel

Across counties, both CLT and SLT members were
enthusiastic about the networking and interagency col-
laboration taking place. At CLT meetings, discussions
were rich and included discussing how agencies could
work together to assist students, share agency infor-
mation about available community services, and work
together as one team member stated to “break down

some of the barriers in the community.” Collabora-
tion and networking at the SLT included how agencies
could work together to meet the needs of students and
their families. Teams were solution focused, when one
agency could not provide, others stepped in to ensure
student and family needs were met. One team mem-
ber commented, “It’s not necessarily competitive but
again, it’s all about the individual. What’s best for this
person?” Another commented:

It doesn’t feel as much like work, it feels like some-
thing enjoyable, you get to interact with different people
and so I think that’s been a pleasure. I’m looking for-
ward to the things we’re going to be able to do.

3.2.2. Improved communication about services
Collaboration among community agencies went

beyond collaborating to deliver services to students and
informing others about services they provide; service
providers were collaborating to inform other partici-
pating agencies of their discipline and services they
offer by conducting staff trainings. Several counties had
previously established cooperative teams that devel-
oped systems for ensuring agency information about
services was distributed to the community. Through
CIRCLES those relationships were enhanced to include
better distribution methods to students and families.
For example, all three districts developed transition-
focused resource guides for parents, and have made
these available as students enter their senior year,
at their senior year IEP meeting, and at the end of
the school year. Two counties developed innovative
ways to distribute agency information (i.e., dis-
trict’s exceptional children’s website, pocket reference
resource, district meetings, videotaped infomercials for
teachers).

3.2.3. Empowering students and parents by having
them lead the meetings

Team members noted a strength of CIRCLES was
that it empowered students and their families, by equip-
ping them with information about agencies. Agency
members were impressed by the volume of students
they were able to see, “ . . . just within this school
year we’ve already staffed 21 students among the four
high schools that we’re working with . . . .” CIRCLES
teams were able to help students and families under-
stand processes and procedures including eligibility
requirements and how to apply for services, giving them
tools to navigate the system themselves. As one member
noted:

62 T. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Implementing CIRCLES

. . . to be able to explain to them you know what is
going on and because there’s some things that happen
when they turned 18 that it’s a little different and to be
able to explain that to them and maybe see a light bulb
go off that they can have actually understood some-
thing that maybe they’ve not, because not having or not
thought about asking us before.

Finally, all three school districts implemented a pro-
cess to ensure when parents left the SLT meetings they
had a packet of information relevant to their child’s
transition. As a result, in some cases, what started as
a plan for helping a student, turned into a venue for
providing assistance for family needs such as housing
and transportation. As another member said, “ . . . we
wound up helping some of the families with trans-
portation issues that they didn’t know that we could
do.”

3.2.4. Helping change student lives
In several of the counties, teachers excelled in

preparing students for their SLT meeting. Part of this
preparation included helping students focus on what
they wanted to do after high school in term of employ-
ment, education or training, and independent living.
Students came to SLT meetings prepared to tell agency
providers what they wanted to do and receive informa-
tion about how the agencies can help them achieve their
post-school goals. As one agency member stated, their
county:

. . . is doing such a great job as a county of really mak-
ing sure that your teachers know what needs to happen
to prepare the students to come in. So we don’t have
any students coming in cold, they come in . . . and they
present to a group of adults they’ve never met [with
their] all about me presentation: this is who I am this
is what I like to do, these are things I need help with,
and here’s what I want to do after I graduate, and here’s
how you can help.

Even students with more significant cognitive dis-
abilities participate in leading their SLT meeting to the
extent possible. Teachers work with students so they
can participate on their own level. As one agency rep-
resentative noted:

. . . [some] students had more [severe] autism and the
teacher and the student work together making the power
point but it took the teacher saying, ok tell them your
name and then he says it. Ok, what do you like? And
he could look, there were pictures up there that I’m
guessing that the student helped pick out some pictures
of a car or whatever the thing was but it was neat to see

that the teacher was respecting the student to still be his
meeting . . .

Another comment made by many was about the
change seen in students after leading their SLT meeting.
Not only were students benefiting from the community
services offered at the SLT meetings, but by leading
their presentations at these meetings, students were
enhancing their social skills. As one team member
notes:

I’ve seen both of them since their presentation and
they’re like, “Hi!” So it helped, it was, I can see how
that really helped them because they were a little more
open, a little more direct to talk, so I can see the benefits
of that.

Finally, as one teacher remarked on the benefits of
one of her students presenting at an SLT “ . . . she says
it was amazing. Just to see and hear everything that each
one had to say, that they could help the students with
[what] she says. It was great.”

4. Discussion

4.1. Limitations

Before we discuss the findings of this study, there
are several limitations worth noting. First, these data
are part of a first year formative program evaluation of
the CIRCLES model for service delivery. As such, they
represent a small portion of the possible data available,
and an early “snapshot” of CIRCLES in action. They are
an incomplete record of our work in CIRCLES; input
from parents and students was not gathered in year one
due to constraints associated with time, resources, and
implementation. These data will be gathered in subse-
quent years and used to inform our continued program
improvements. Another area of data that are lacking
in the current study are those of the post-school out-
comes of our CIRCLES students. We will begin one
year after graduation (summer of year two) gathering
post school outcomes from students who went through
CIRCLES.

4.2. Changes in policy and practice

Two major changes in policy and procedure worth
noting resulted from the first year of CIRCLES imple-
mentation across these three counties. First, in an
example of true collaboration, one county’s CLT iden-
tified barriers to serving students in the population of
interest; among these barriers was a lack of training

T. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Implementing CIRCLES 63

in the county for jobs actually available within the
county. The community college responded by develop-
ing, through their continuing education department, five
strands of study to address these needs. The programs
developed prepared students to work in five fields (a)
childcare, (b) food services, (c) landscaping, (d) office
assistant, and (e) custodial assistant. At the CLT meet-
ing, the community college representative presented
these five strands to the other members for approval
and feedback, and explained that four of the five were
ready to “go live” in the fall of year two. They only
needed a commercial grade kitchen in order to launch
the fifth – food services. Another CLT member offered
a facility that had recently been closed as a site for the
food services training. All five programs have begun,
and three graduated students in May of year two.

Another successful policy change resulting from
CIRCLES implementation occurred in a different
county, where the local community college had a pol-
icy that was not in support of the students primarily
served by CIRCLES. In this state, there are two differ-
ent diploma tracks, the standard course of study (SCS),
which is how most students graduate, and the occu-
pational course of study (OCS) which is more geared
toward occupational training for students who are not
likely to attend a four year university. In one county,
the community college had a policy of not accepting
OCS diplomas for “certificate bearing” programs, such
as automobile mechanic and cosmetologist preparation
programs. These are two programs that OCS students
tend to gravitate toward. Prior to CIRCLES, special
education teachers at local high schools were unaware
of the policy, and often wrote transition plans for their
students that included attending one of these programs.
During the first CIRCLES SLT meeting in this county,
the community college representative explained that
such programs at their institution required either a
SCS diploma or a GED. Teachers and SLT members
began generating creative ways that their students could
receive training and experience without enrolling in
the programs. During the second year of implementa-
tion, the community college actually changed its policy
regarding OCS diplomas, so that now, any student with
a diploma, either SCS or OCS, can take the placement
tests and enroll in the certificate granting programs that
will prepare them to work in the field of their choice.

4.3. Implications for practice

Although CIRCLES enjoyed considerable success in
its first full year of implementation, several barriers

were identified above. As we continue implementa-
tion here and begin implementing in other districts and
states, there are some barriers to address: (a) lack of
awareness of services available, (b) preparing students
for SLT meetings, (c) sharing information prior to the
meetings, and (d) following up after SLT meetings. We
address each below.

4.3.1. Lack of awareness of services available
Agency representatives, teachers, parents and stu-

dents all lack an understanding of services available
and the requirements and limitations of each. Although
many districts have downloadable information on web-
sites, printed resource guides, and pocket references,
the usefulness of such tools is limited without the oppor-
tunity to understand how the information relates to a
specific student or situation. We suggest pairing previ-
ously mentioned strategies with face-to-face options,
such as agency fairs, panel discussions, and meet-
and-greet opportunities to prevent information gaps
and allow for clarification and understanding. Such
information sharing between agencies and schools in
particular must be an ongoing process by necessity
due to the constantly changing landscape of legislation,
policies, procedures, staff, and students.

4.3.2. Preparing students for SLT meetings
We found students were the best prepared in districts

with high levels of teacher buy-in. When implement-
ing in future areas, we suggest several additional steps
to improve both the buy in of the teachers and the
preparation of the students. First, additional training
and support in self-determination and student led IEP
meetings will help set a backdrop for the CIRCLES
model of service delivery. In addition, allowing teachers
to view videos of model SLT meetings or to visit dis-
tricts or schools already implementing CIRCLES and
directly observe their SLT meetings can help teachers
understand how the meeting works and what to do to
prepare their students. Finally, offering trainings geared
specifically toward teachers and paraprofessionals that
include task analysis for preparing a student for the SLT
can support teachers in doing their best so that their
students’ SLT meetings are maximized.

4.3.3. Sharing student information prior to
meetings

Obtaining parental permission in a timely fashion to
invite outside agencies to the SLT meeting is critical to
the success of the overall meeting. When agency mem-
bers know specifics about the students they will team

64 T. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Implementing CIRCLES

on a given day, they can prepare specific handouts and
talking points to speak directly to the needs of each indi-
vidual student. Moreover, when agency members have
a “heads up” about the students presenting, they can
invite or suggests additional team members who might
be able to meet student or family specific needs, on a
case by case basis.

4.3.4. Following up after SLT meetings
One of the difficulties with transition is that no one

really owns it. Special education teachers are tasked
with planning for it, but the follow-through and what
happens to students after they leave special education
and the K-12 public school system is often quite dif-
ferent from what we had planned. It is no surprise,
then, that one of the struggles our teams and districts
faced was that of following up. Although each team
recorded action items for each meeting, there was a
lack of follow-through on behalf of students, parents,
teachers, and agency members across all three counties.
We have several suggestions to improve levels of follow
through. First, have every agency member take notes of
the meeting and generate an “action item” for each stu-
dent. Compile all of these notes together in a master
list of minutes and distribute widely to each member of
the SLT, the special education teacher, paraprofession-
als working with the student, the student, and her or
his parents. Second, set aside the first 30–45 minutes of
every subsequent SLT meeting to discuss the students
teamed at the previous meeting, review action items and
identify what steps still need to be taken and by whom.
Finally, assign specific members of the SLT to follow
up with the family on items that may have dropped off
the parents’ or students’ radars.

4.4. Future directions

As we continue our formative evaluation of
CIRCLES as a model for service delivery, we will
increase our data collection efforts. Input from students,
parents, and teachers on the implementation process
will be vital in subsequent years to the regular improve-
ment of the program. We will also look at data from
numerous sources, included in Table 1, to inform our
efforts.

5. Conclusion

CIRCLES is an effective new service delivery
model that streamlines the transition planning process,

making everyone’s work more efficient and effective.
It improves interagency collaboration and increases the
knowledge of, and access to, community services for
students with disabilities leaving high school. More
research is needed to determine the specific mech-
anisms impacted by CIRCLES at the student level.
Furthermore, CIRCLES staff must consider the devel-
opment of an implementation guide, as well as training
materials that could be taken utilized by districts in more
remote settings. As we continue to collect data, includ-
ing post-school outcomes data, on our students and our
school and agency partners, we will identify the aspects
of CIRCLES that are mandatory to its success and those
that are “optional.” CIRCLES warrants further research
and support as a new service delivery model and a
method for increasing interagency collaboration in the
transition planning process.

Acknowledgments

The CIRCLES Project is made possible by a grant
from the Institute for Education Sciences; as part
of this grant, a multi-method research study is cur-
rently comparing the post-school outcomes of students
with disabilities who receive services through this new
model of service delivery with the outcomes for stu-
dents who received services through the standard model
#R324A110018.

References

Aspel, N., Bettis, G., Quinn, P., Wood, W., & Test, D. (1999). A Col-
laborative process for planning transition services for all students
with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individu-
als, 22, 21-42.

Aspel, N., Bettis, G., Test, D. W., & Wood, W. M. (1998). An eval-
uation of a comprehensive system of transition services. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21, 203-223.

Balcazar, F. E., Taylor-Ritzler, T., & Dimfl, S. (2012). Improving the
transition outcomes of low-income minority youth with disabili-
ties. Exceptionality, 20, 114-132.

Bullis, M., Davis, C. D., Bull, B., & Johnson, B. (1995). Transition
achievement among young adults with deafness: What variables
relate to success? Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin: Division
of Rehabilitation Counseling, American Personnel and Guidance
Association, 39, 130-150.

Bruner, C. (1991). Thinking Collaboratively: Ten Questions and
Answers to Help Policy Makers Improve Children’s Services.
Washington, D.C.: Education and Human Services Consortium.

Fleming, A. R., Del Valle, R., Kim, M., & Leahy, M. J. (2012).
Best practice models of effective vocational rehabilitation
service delivery in the public rehabilitation program: A review and

T. Povenmire-Kirk et al. / Implementing CIRCLES 65

synthesis of the empirical literature. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 56, 146-159.

Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Migiore, A. (2011). Comparing the transition
planning, postsecondary education, and employment outcomes
of students with intellectual and other disabilities. Career Devel-
opment for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 4-17.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004. (2004). PL 108-
446, 20 U.S.C. §§1400 et seq.

Kohler, P. D. (1993). Best practices in transition: Substantiated or
implied? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16,
107-121.

Landmark, L. J., Ju, S., & Zhang, D. (2010). Substantiated best prac-
tices in transition: Fifteen plus years later. Career Development
for Exceptional Individuals, 33, 165-176.

Lee, G. K., & Carter, E. W. (2012). Preparing transition-age students
with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders for meaningful
work. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 988-1000.

Mazzotti, V. L., Rowe, D. A., Cameto, R., Test, D. W., & Morningstar,
M. E. (2013). Identifying and promoting transition evidence-
based practices and predictors of success: A position paper of the
Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Devel-
opment for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 140-151.

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology,
22, 29-52.

Noonan, P. M., McCall, Z. A., Zheng, C., & Gaumer Erickson, A. S.
(2012). An analysis of collaboration in a state-level interagency
transition team. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,
35, 143-154.

Noonan, P. M., Morningstar, M. E., & Erickson, A. (2008). Improving
interagency collaboration. Effective strategies used by high-
performing local districts and communities. Career Development
for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 132-143.

Oertle, K. M., Plotner, A. J., & Trach, J. S. (2013). Rehabilitation
professionals’ expectations for transition and interagency collab-
oration. Journal of Rehabilitation, 79, 25-35.

Repetto, J.B., Webb, K. W., Garvan, C. W., & Washington, T.
(2002). Connecting student outcomes with transition practices in
Florida. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25,
123-139.

Roberts, K. D. (2010). Topic areas to consider when planning transi-
tion from high school to postsecondary education for students
with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disorders, 25, 158-1162.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and
the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and
well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Shaw, S. F., & Dukes III, L. L. (2013). Transition to postsecondary
education: A call for evidence-based practice. Career Develop-
ment for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 51-57.

Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Richter, S. M., White, J., Mazzotti, V.,
Walker, A. R., Kortering, L., et al. (2009). Evidence-based prac-
tices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 32, 115-128.

Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., White, J., Richter, S., & Walker, A. (2009).
Evidence-based secondary transition practices for enhancing
school completion. Exceptionalities, 17, 16-29.

Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A.L., Fowler, C. H., Korter-
ing, L., & Kohler, P. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition
predictors for improving post-school outcomes for students with
disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32,
160-181.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Promoting Educational Excel-
lence for All Americans: Building the Legacy, IDEA 2004. Online
retrieved May 2, 2012: http://idea.ed.gov/.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2004). Beyond self-determination: Causal agency
theory. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 16,
337-359.

Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of
collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 139-
162.

http://idea.ed.gov/

Copyright of Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation is the property of IOS Press and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.