Perceptions of Postsecondary Experiences and Supports That Advance the Personal Goals of Students With Extensive Support Needs

Inclusive postsecondary education (PSE) programs at institutions of higher education are emerging as opportunities for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including those with extensive support needs (ESN), to progress toward their desired outcomes. This qualitative study aimed to understand the experiences and supports that current and recently graduated students in a dual enrollment nonresidential PSE program perceive as contributing to their self-directed employment, education, and social goals. Furthermore, this study explored how students’ perceived PSE affected their goal achievement and future lives. Findings from interviews with 10 participants with IDD, including eight with ESN, revealed that obtaining and maintaining competitive employment was negatively impacted by COVID-19, paid employment during PSE was not aligned with participants’ employment goals, internship experiences led to participants learning about their work preferences and changing their employment goals, and peer mentors impacted the achievement of participant’s employment, education, and social goals. Implications for practice and research and study limitations are described.U.S. Department of EducationImmediate accessThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Fostering Participation During Literacy Instruction in Inclusive Classrooms for Students With Complex Support Needs: Educators’ Strategies and Perspectives

Existing research has documented evidence-based practices that are effective for supporting students with complex support needs (CSN) to learn academic skills. However, there is a need to learn more about effective instructional strategies for students with CSN during literacy lessons in general education classrooms. In addition, there is a need to understand general education teachers' perspectives on these strategies, including how they learned about them. The purpose of this study was to understand (a) the extent of participation of students with CSN in literacy instruction and activities in general education classrooms, (b) the supports educators provide during these activities, and (c) how educators learned about the strategies they use in their classrooms. We observed nine students with CSN and conducted follow-up interviews with their classroom teachers. Overall, students participated in academic activities for a majority of observations, and these activities addressed a variety of different literacy skills. Educators used research-based instructional practices to support the students including prompts and visual supports. During follow-up interviews, general education teachers described the strategies they used to support students with CSN, and they described how they learned about these strategies. Implications for future research and practice are presented.This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

A Secondary Analysis of Jackson et al. (2022): The Impact of Educational Placement for Students with Complex Support Needs

The least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate has driven classroom placement decisions for the last five decades. It has been measured as the percentage of time students spend in general education contexts (i.e., Placement A: >80%; Placement B: 40-79%; Placement C: <40%). The mandate and its continuum of placements are predicated on the assumption that students can transition to less restrictive contexts, and that each placement will provide students with the skills needed to succeed in less restrictive contexts and, ultimately, in Placement A. Results from this descriptive analysis of survey responses from a sample of teachers and administrators of 98 elementary students with complex support needs indicate that less time in general education (Placements B and C) results in decreased access to single-grade classes, educator expertise, grade-aligned instructional materials, and general education curriculum. Furthermore, for most of the variables analyzed, the data suggest that Placement B is more closely aligned with Placement C than with Placement A, suggesting that it may function as a restrictive placement. We argue that current LRE implementation is resulting in placement and progress stagnation. To allow students with complex support needs to have inclusive and equitable learning opportunities, LRE must shift away from the concept of percentage of time in general education to requirements of student access to instruction on state-adopted grade-level general education standards within general education contexts and curriculum.Institute of Education SciencesImmediate access.This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Analysis of Literacy Content in IEPs of Students With Complex Support Needs

The Individualized Education Program (IEP) should include a summary of the student’s current skills and needs as well as annual goals that support their progress in the general education curriculum; however, IEPs for students with complex support needs may be missing required information. We investigated IEP goals and Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP) statements for 112 students with complex support needs in four educational placements to understand (a) similarities and differences in the literacy skills identified in IEP goals, (b) the extent to which students’ IEP goals aligned with the literacy skills identified in their PLAAFPs, and (c) how this alignment differed across placements. Results revealed some students were missing literacy-focused content in their IEP, very few K–2 students had goals focused on early literacy skills, few students in Grades 3 to 6 had expressive writing goals, and IEP goals were inconsistently aligned with PLAAFP statements.Institute of Education SciencesImmediate accessThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]