711439

research-article2017
RPSXXX10.1177/1540796917711439Research and Practice for Persons With Severe DisabilitiesMorningstar et al.

Article
Research and Practice for Persons

Implementing College and Career

with Severe Disabilities
1­–18
© The Author(s) 2017
Readiness: Critical Dimensions for Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Youth With Severe Disabilities DOI: 10.1177/1540796917711439
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917711439
rpsd.sagepub.com

Mary E. Morningstar1, Alison L. Zagona2, Hatice Uyanik1,

Jingrong Xie1, and Stephanie Mahal1

Abstract
Focused attention to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and college and career readiness (CCR)
has been attributed to increased secondary school reform efforts directed at ensuring all students graduate
high school prepared for adulthood. To successfully experience college and careers, students must have
the knowledge, skills, and experiences associated with engagement in core academics, as well as essential
nonacademic competencies such as growth mindsets, problem-solving, and interpersonal engagement. This
study sought out insights and perspectives from national experts to understand the skills, opportunities,
and supports needed to ensure students with severe disabilities are college and career ready. The study
offers research results focused on initial insights supportive of inclusive postsecondary outcomes for youth
with severe disabilities.

Keywords
college and career readiness, Common Core State Standards, students with severe disabilities, inclusive
education, integrated postschool outcomes

Current practices related to college and career readiness (CCR) emerged from school reform efforts
associated with the development of educational standards such as those described by the Common
Core State Standards (CCSS; 2010), setting forth academic foundations of student growth and success
by defining learning goals of what a student should know and be able to do at the end of each grade
(http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/). Educational standards serve as a consistent ref-
erence point for states by specifying grade-level knowledge and skills. Having clearly articulated
standards provides additional guidance to schools and districts, giving them local control in making
curricular and instructional decisions (Conley, 2014). For students with disabilities, the 1997
Amendments to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) linked educational results by
ensuring students with disabilities were involved with and progressed in both the general education

This article is part of a forthcoming special issue in Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. This issue, titled
“Common Core State Standards and Students with Severe Disabilities,” seeks to explore and understand the impact of the
adoption of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) on students with severe disabilities.

1The University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA

2The University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

Corresponding Author:
Mary E. Morningstar, The University of Kansas, 521 JR Pearson Hall, 1122 W. Campus Rd., Lawrence, KS 66049, USA.
Email: mmorningstar@ku.edu
2 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 00(0)

curriculum and state and local accountability efforts (Kleinert et al., 2002). For students with severe
disabilities, states have maintained participation in alternate assessments based on established alter-
nate achievement standards (AAS).
The majority of states adopted the CCSS when first developed; however, more recently states are
beginning to move away from the national core standards toward state-level performance standards
(Academic Benchmarks, n.d.). Such trends may be less true for the alternate assessments designed for
students with severe disabilities. State standards are designed to ensure all students meet specified edu-
cational requirements needed to graduate high school prepared for college or early careers. For many
high school students, developing CCR skills can be challenging and complex; this is equally true for
students with severe disabilities who often require extensive supports due to learning, behavior, and
social/emotional characteristics. In addition, youth with severe disabilities may experience greater chal-
lenges acquiring CCR skills due to restricted experiences available as a result of limited opportunities to
develop skills in inclusive educational and community settings (Morningstar, Kurth, Wehmeyer, &
Shogren, 2017).
Increased emphasis on CCR has led disability researchers to explore how CCR aligns with students
with disabilities. A recent study has established a framework consisting of six CCR domains aligned to
the needs of students with disabilities (Morningstar, Lombardi, Fowler, & Test, 2017). This framework
emphasizes academic factors most often associated with state learning standards but equally emphasizes
nonacademic skills and experiences that most likely are not incorporated within state standards or assess-
ment measures (Farrington et al., 2012). While developed for students with disabilities, this particular
CCR framework did not explicitly consider the unique learning and support needs of students with severe
disabilities.
There continues to exist the need to ensure youth with severe disabilities are prepared for college and
careers, especially given that most graduate or exit special education without the skills necessary to be suc-
cessful (Kearns et al., 2010). Limited opportunities to fully participate in secondary school and community
environments often result in youth with severe disabilities achieving outcomes substantially lower than
most other groups of students with disabilities, with inclusive adult outcomes least likely to be obtained
(Carter, Austin, & Trainor, 2012). While evidence points to access to the general curriculum as a predictor
contributing to postschool success (Mazzotti, Rowe, Cameto, Test, & Morningstar, 2013), youth with severe
disabilities are least likely to spend substantial time in general education classrooms (Morningstar, Kurth,
& Johnson, 2017). Thus, there is a pressing need for secondary programs to reflect rigorous, high-quality
instruction tied to both educational goals (i.e., AAS) and articulated CCR standards addressing the unique
support needs of youth with severe disabilities.
Most states define CCR through a predominantly academic lens, focusing on college readiness (Mishkind,
2014). This orientation can lead to an overreliance on content knowledge aligned to state academic stan-
dards and assessments. Relatively few states take into consideration broader “readiness” features that con-
centrate on student preparedness and engagement in nonacademic opportunities while managing individual
learning and social challenges (Krauss, Pittman, & Johnson, 2016). Recent conceptualizations have empha-
sized that academic achievement is predicated on academic behaviors (e.g., attendance in school, using
learning strategies) as well as traits and characteristics such as grit, self-discipline, and mindsets (Farrington
et al., 2012). Others have recognized the critical role school climate and context for learning plays in student
engagement (Lawson & Lawson, 2013). Therefore, emergent CCR models encompass not only student
academic skills as an essential foundation but also clearly articulate critical nonacademic skills, opportuni-
ties, and contexts necessary for ensuring readiness for life after high school (Nagaoka, Farrington, Ehrlich,
& Heath, 2015). What has been missing from past policy and research, however, is the meaningful consid-
eration and application of CCR for youth with severe disabilities (Kearns, Towles-Reeves, Kleinert,
O’Regan Kleinert, & Thomas, 2009).
Several challenges underscore CCR for this unique group of students, the first of which is their higher
levels of social isolation and educational segregation that may be due to lowered adult outcome expectations.
Limited access, opportunities, and supports while in school, especially related to integrated employment,
have meant youth with severe disabilities are not prepared for inclusive employment outcomes (Carter et al.,
Morningstar et al. 3

2012). Furthermore, insufficient community supports often lead to (a) inadequate and unfinished transitions
for families and youth with severe disabilities (Morningstar, 2017), (b) highly restrictive school environ-
ments (Kurth, Morningstar, & Kozleski, 2014), and (c) limited access to communication supports in general
education (De Bortoli, Balandin, Foreman, Mathisen, & Arthur-Kelly, 2012; Kleinert et al., 2015). Developing
a CCR framework responsive to the unique learning characteristics and support needs of youth with severe
disabilities is compelling and warranted. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify unique charac-
teristics of CCR considered essential for ensuring success for youth with severe disabilities. Using qualitative
methods, national experts examined an existing CCR framework developed for students with disabilities
(Morningstar et al., 2017) to investigate two research questions:

Research Question 1: What are the unique characteristics associated with CCR for youth with severe
disabilities?
Research Question 2: What CCR experiences are necessary to prepare youth with severe disabilities for
inclusive adult outcomes?

Method
This study is part of ongoing research using Delphi methods to establish consensus of critical CCR charac-
teristics for success among youth with severe disabilities. The method used during the first phase of the
study reported herein, as is common among Delphi approaches, focuses specifically on qualitative content
analytic methods.

Participants
When identifying expert participants as part of the Delphi method, we adhered to established guidance that
respondents are more likely to participate if they (a) feel professionally close to the problem, (b) have per-
tinent information to share, (c) are motivated to respond as part of their daily work, and (d) value judgments
from other experts (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975). For this specific study, experts were identi-
fied from among research fields closely associated with the purpose of the study: (a) CCR/transition ser-
vices, (b) inclusive education, and (c) students with severe disabilities. The criteria for inclusion required
participants to be an established researcher with authorship of a critical body of scholarly, peer-reviewed
work in one or more of the areas of expertise. The research team worked to ensure a balance of experts
whose work was relevant across the three research areas by examining the past decade of research journals
most closely associated with the purpose of the study (e.g., Research and Practice for Persons With Severe
Disabilities, Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, Exceptional Children,
Inclusion, Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities). As a team, we generated a list of cur-
rently established and emergent researchers. From this list, we then narrowed to those who had a record of
research that included one or more of the primary areas of focus (i.e., CCR/transition, inclusive education,
students with severe disabilities).
In this way, we identified 64 national experts and invited them via personalized emails describing the
purpose of the study and the Delphi methods, why the participant was selected based on specific research
expertise, and information about confidentiality, timelines for responding, and the opportunity to “opt out”
of participation and further email correspondence. The text of the email asked respondents to click a unique
link if interested in participating. We then emailed expert participants who did not opt out of the study up to
3 times during a 3-month period of time. These follow-up emails were sent to participants who had not yet
responded or who had clicked on the link to the survey, but had either not started or completed.
Among the 35 experts who responded and completed the survey, more than half (57%) reported possess-
ing two areas of expertise, seven reported one expert area (20%), and the remaining eight reported expertise
across all three areas (23%). Keeping in mind that participants reported more than one area of expertise, the
overall totals included 19 experts with expertise in CCR/transition, 21 with expertise in inclusive education,
and 31 with expertise in severe disabilities.
4 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 00(0)

Survey Instrument
An online survey was created using the existing CCR framework (Morningstar et al., 2017) that con-
sisted of six domains describing academic and nonacademic CCR elements (i.e., Academic Engagement,
Mindsets, Critical Thinking, Learning Processes, Interpersonal Engagement, Transition Competencies).
The online survey was designed to individually solicit open-ended responses. The survey was orga-
nized by each of the six CCR domains and first described the operational definition of the domain
based on past findings (Morningstar et al., 2017). Participants were asked to respond to the definition
by listing up to five elements, descriptors, and/or characteristics associated with that particular domain
from their unique standpoint of research and practice. Next, within each domain, participants were
asked to identify and describe any other relevant issues, concerns, and/or barriers toward applying
CCR to youth with severe disabilities. Finally, participants were asked to identify their areas of research
expertise from among a list (i.e., CCR/transition, inclusive education, severe disabilities). If completed
in its entirety, the online survey would generate 36 open-ended responses from each participant.
Response prompts were sufficiently specific, requesting short descriptive terms or phrases, thereby
allowing completion of the survey in 30 min or less.
During the development of the survey, a researcher with expertise in Delphi survey methods reviewed
the online instrument and provided suggestions for improving the flow and design of the survey. This feed-
back included input on the overall survey design to ensure higher rates of reliability of responses, including
(a) improving the clarity of instructions, (b) organizing the items in the survey by domain, and (c) format-
ting the open-ended responses as a list rather than an open-ended paragraph.
Participant names and email addresses were kept confidential and were used only to track participants’
completion and follow-up reminders. Before gaining access to the survey, all participants were required to
consent to participate.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected over a 3-month period of time. After sending the initial email request, at subsequent
2-week intervals, the research team sent nonresponders and partial completers up to three reminders request-
ing completion. The follow-up email reminders were sent to nonresponders who had clicked on the link to
the survey and those who started but had not sufficiently completed the survey.
While this study used an online survey organized by the CCR domains, experts responded with open-
ended statements throughout, resulting in purely textual data. Therefore, the analysis was qualitative and
inductive in that the analysis moved from the specific to the general. Individual terms and phrases were
examined as the meaning unit and then grouped according to initial coding categories. The data were ana-
lyzed using qualitative content analysis (QCA) techniques to sort excerpts into similar code categories, and
further examined by combining coded statements into larger descriptor categories resulting in a final stage
that identified the broader themes (Schreier, 2012).
During the initial round of coding, all data were downloaded from Qualtrics (2015) into Microsoft Excel
to bring structure and meaning to the text (Saldaña, 2016). During this first round of analysis, we organized
the data by aggregating all text across all participants for each of the six CCR domains. The unit of analysis
was the single words and multiphrase statements that provided descriptive characteristics associated within
each CCR domain. During this phase, we used open coding techniques whereby four members of the
research team independently examined the data and generated written notes as the preliminary step in iden-
tifying possible coding categories used in subsequent analyses (Elo & Kyngäs, 2007). Each member of the
research team independently examined the data and then met as a team to identify similarities and differ-
ences among terms and phrases. The lead author then examined all notations to develop the initial coding
frame (Schreier, 2012). Development of the coding frame occurred over several meetings during a 2-week
period of time to discuss response distributions and identify emergent data patterns that were then used to
develop a codebook.
During the next phase, the open-ended qualitative data for each respondent were downloaded from
Qualtrics as a transcript. The 35 transcripts were then imported into Dedoose 7.0.23 (2016), an online data
Morningstar et al. 5

analysis program designed for collaborative research. During this round, all members of the research team
independently applied codes from the codebook to a single randomly selected transcript. The lead author
then analyzed all independently coded results across the team members, evaluating code convergence and
noting disagreements. The team reconvened to debrief and reach consensus on the final set of codes, and
revisions were completed to the online codebook.
To establish intercoder agreement, the first and second authors independently coded two transcripts and
achieved an average agreement of 89% (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). After two debriefing sessions, the
researchers reached consensus with coding procedures, and final revisions to the codebook were completed.
The first and second authors then independently coded a randomly selected subset of 11 transcripts (30.5% of
all transcripts), to establish intercoder agreement (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson,
2005), achieving an overall average agreement rate of 83.2% (range = 77%-92%). During this process, the two
researchers met to debrief and discuss coding differences for each of the 11 transcripts. This process led to fur-
ther specificity of the codebook and deeper consensus regarding agreements, additions, and conflicts. The two
researchers then divided the remaining 22 transcripts for independent coding (11 per researcher).
After transcripts were coded, researchers aggregated results, using a code co-occurrence frequency
matrix. This Dedoose analytic tool presents a symmetric, code-by-code matrix of the frequency with which
codes were applied across the six domains as well as across coded excerpts. We examined anticipated and
unexpected occurrences of code applications within each CCR domain and across all coded categories. For
example, we examined how often “self-determination” was coded across each of the six CCR domains, and,
at the same time, we were able to further inspect how the self-determination code aligned with other codes
(e.g., communication access, social engagement). The code co-occurrence frequency matrix illuminated
how concepts related to CCR for students with severe disabilities were represented and organized, and the
matrix was used as a critical precursor to the final stage of the analysis—identifying and interpreting themes
within and across data categories.
Next, researchers queried the qualitative dataset for each coded excerpt as it co-occurred within a speci-
fied CCR domain. In this way, all text excerpts were organized within each code category by the unique
CCR domain. For example, within the Academic Engagement domain, we examined data sorted by all
specified codes (e.g., “mode of communication”). All text excerpts were first sorted by each code and
downloaded into Microsoft Word. The frequency of coded excerpts nested within the CCR domain was
calculated (e.g., the number of times problem-solving was identified within the Mindsets domain). In this
way, we used the summative approach, a QCA technique, to identify, sort, and, to some extent, quantify
excerpts within categories. This allowed us to organize and rank categories, without removing any infre-
quently coded excerpts.
During the final phase of the analysis, data were organized, collapsed, and reexamined for overarching pat-
terns and organizing themes, also known as latent content analysis in QCA (Stemler, 2015). To do this, two
members of the research team independently and consecutively reviewed, sorted, and quantified excerpts for
each of the CCR domains. After discussing emerging patterns and themes, each of the researchers then inde-
pendently read a subsequent CCR domain, looking for confirmation and support for previously identified
themes and noting any unique patterns potentially relevant only to that specific CCR domain. After each inde-
pendent review, the researchers met to debrief and reach consensus. This method was completed for all six
domains. Therefore, we went beyond merely counting frequency of excerpts by implementing a latent content
analysis, thus resulting in deeper contextual meaning of identified themes (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).
Ensuring the trustworthiness and credibility of the findings within the QCA method is similar to that of
most qualitative research studies, albeit with differing terminologies (i.e., reliability and validity; Schreier,
2012). We used several techniques to establish the reliability of the results including interrater agreement
during the initial coding phase, and investigator triangulation across several researchers throughout all
stages of the analysis, with frequent debriefing sessions (Brantlinger et al., 2005). In addition, we estab-
lished an audit trail keeping track of all data collection and multiphase analytic procedures, thereby substan-
tiating sufficient time was spent to achieve the findings. For the most part, responses generated were short
and succinct phrases, with a clear and direct meaning, and therefore, the initial QCA methods were suffi-
cient for purposes of both reliability and validity of the qualitative data (e.g., coding frames, interrater
6 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 00(0)

agreement, determining code frequencies; Schreier, 2012). However, the subsequent QCA procedures ana-
lyzing latent content as described earlier support the final interpretations and themes found, and strengthen
the validity of the findings (Stemler, 2015). Finally, we incorporated thick description so that other research-
ers are able to determine the degree of transferability of the findings.

Findings
Among the 64 experts invited, five declined participation. Nineteen experts did not respond to initial or
subsequent requests; and five surveys were incomplete with insufficient data to be included. A total of 35
experts completed the open-ended survey, establishing a 54.6% response rate among participants initially
contacted (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014).
The findings from the QCA revealed substantial extensions and elaborations of the six CCR domains
pertaining specifically to characteristics associated with CCR for youth with severe disabilities. All total,
we identified 1,615 unique text excerpts, an average of 46 excerpts per participant, which were coded a total
of 2,059 times (i.e., double coding of excerpts across multiple characteristics was allowable). Data were
sorted and examined by each CCR domain as well as across domains, and the code co-occurrence methods
led to alignment of similar terms and concepts. This phase resulted in the identification of 89 descriptors
characterizing unique skills, opportunities, and supports among and across the six CCR domains. A final
thematic analysis revealed descriptions, additions, and enhancements resulting in the identification of three
overarching themes within most of the CCR domains: (a) specific student skills needed, (b) inclusive oppor-
tunities to learn such skills, and (c) supports and systems capacities required to support readiness. Experts
did not recommend changing or merging the original six CCR domain structure but substantially modified
what necessitated CCR for this unique population of students. Redundancies across domains were evident,
as were descriptors that were not frequently reported by experts (e.g., positive behavioral supports), and are
discussed later in this article. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics found within the six domains, listed
according to ranked frequency and density of excerpts.

Academic Engagement
Twenty unique aspects of academic engagement were identified from among 444 coded excerpts. The
majority of these descriptors fell into the categories of academic engagement skills as well as supports for
academic engagement. Opportunities to learn academic skills were less often identified.

Skills associated with academic engagement. Academic skills and attributes included broad “foundational”
skills (e.g., understanding demands of environment, listening, understanding adaptations), as well as spe-
cific academic skills needed to access general education (e.g., literacy, numeracy). By far, the most preva-
lent characteristic denoted the importance of an ability to meaningfully communicate to engage and
participate in academic activities. Social interactions for learning emerged as highly ranked, and centered
on meaningful collaborations with same-age peers within academic instruction.

Opportunities to engage in academics.  Excerpts concentrated within two concepts: (a) meaningful participa-
tion in opportunities to respond and (b) applying skills across content and contexts. For the most part,
opportunities to respond was described as active participation in learning using a range of response modali-
ties that allow students to demonstrate academic competence. Interactional experiences across large and
small groups, as well as individual participation in learning content, were most often noted. Academic
content was described as relevant throughout a student’s daily life in real-world activities (e.g., preferred
activities, community engagement, employment).

Supports for academic engagement.  Supports in inclusive settings were described as both conceptually
broad and highly specific to fully participate and progress in the general curriculum. Greater degrees of
specificity were articulated within some supports needed to promote skills associated with adult roles and
 Table 1.  Characteristics of CCR Aligned With Supports, Opportunities, and Skills.
Mindsets “autonomy Interpersonal Transition
Theme Academic engagement Critical thinking supportive” Learning processes engagement competencies

Skills  1.  Communication 1. Problem-solving 1. Self-determination 1. General skills to 1. Understanding 1. Building

  2. Social interactions for
learning
 3.  Self-determination
 4.  Problem-solving
  5. Goal-setting/decision
making
  6. Advocating for supports
 7.  Self-regulation
  8.  Foundational skills
  9. Content access skills
10. Motivation
Opportunities 1. Meaningful opportunities
to respond
2. Applying skills across
content and context
2. Generalization application/
transferability
3. Communication
4. Higher order thinking skills
a. Identify alternatives
b. Interpretation/
synthesis
c. Evaluation/
comparisons
d. Decision making
e. Logic/arguments
f. Miscellaneous
5. Self-determination
6.  Planning skills
1. Opportunities to practice
critical thinking
a. Self-advocacy access learning others transition
b. Ownership of 2. Self-determination 2. Self- competenciesa
learning 3. Scheduling and determination
c. Goal-setting prioritizing 3. Conversational
d. Decision making 4. Self-monitoring/self- and social
e. Self-awareness regulation interactions
f. Preferences 5. Learning strategies 4. Communication
g. Self-efficacy 6. Communication
2. Social communication 7. Problem-solving
3. Self-monitoring 8. Generalization
4.  Unique traits 9. Higher order thinking
5.  Risk taking
1. Opportunities to 1. Collaborative learning 1. Collaboration 1. Building
practice and peer supports and teamwork transition
2. Engaging in active 2. Contextually competenciesa
learning appropriate
interactions
3. Opportunities
to engage with
others
4. Friendships
and social
engagement

(continued)

7
8
Table 1.  (continued)

Mindsets “autonomy Interpersonal Transition

Theme Academic engagement Critical thinking supportive” Learning processes engagement competencies

Supports 1. Supports aligned to 1. Educator expectations to 1. Sense of belonging 1. Supports for learning 1. Supports for 1. Supporting self-
postschool outcomes support positive climate 2. Outcome 2. Instruction and interpersonal determination
2. Supports and services 2. Universal design for expectations inclusion engagement a. Goal-setting
provided in general learning 3. Communication b. Self-
education 3. Modifications of learning systems and AAC directed
3. Individualized, strengths- materials supports
based c. Self-
4. Accessible instructional regulation
materials and self-
5. Universal design for monitoring
learning 2. Supporting
6. Technology integration transition
7. High expectations for the planning
future
8. Positive behavioral
supports
9. High expectations for the
future

Note. Indicators are ranked within the three themes by total number of excerpts generated. CCR = college and career readiness; AAC = augmentative and alternative communication.
aSee Table 2 for unique characteristics associated with building transition competencies.
Morningstar et al. 9

responsibilities (e.g., balancing a checkbook). Other supports referenced existing strategies (e.g., univer-
sal design for learning, accessible instructional materials, assistive technology). High expectations for
future outcomes emerged as an essential characteristic of academic supports.

Critical Thinking
Participants generated 249 excerpts that were collapsed into nine descriptors, one of which, higher order
thinking, incorporated six unique subcategories. Critical thinking was primarily skills-focused, accounting
for six of the 10 descriptors. Opportunities to practice and supporting the development of critical thinking
were less frequently identified.

Critical thinking skills.  Problem-solving emerged as the most prevalent skill and was associated with knowing
when to seek assistance, being able to identify contextual factors before acting, and evaluating the quality
of one’s solutions. It was noted that students should be able to communicate relevant information about a
learning problem and apply concepts and operations to novel solutions, thereby extending rote skill acquisi-
tion and applying knowledge to novel situations, and transferring skills to real-life settings. Communication
skills were noted as essential when describing critical thinking and comments most often focused on
expressing learning using multiple communication modalities. Throughout, participants indicated that com-
munication systems must remain robust and dynamic, growing with the student over time.

Opportunities to develop critical thinking.  Practicing critical thinking skills across multiple areas of academic
and contextual knowledge emerged as an important element. Second, assisting students to create and explain
choices over time and to support student reflection and evaluation was noted by several participants. Finally,
opportunities to make mistakes, respond through active learning, and experience a wide range of higher
order thinking skills were identified.

Supporting critical thinking.  Participants generated a wide range of unique excerpts related to supporting
critical thinking that primarily fell into two organizing concepts: educator expectations and instructional
planning. Maintaining high expectations was identified as essential for student growth, as it was noted that
educators primarily dictate students’ access to academic content and are most often responsible for support-
ing students in relevant and challenging settings. Participants noted that students might need additional and
unique scaffolding to acquire and apply critical thinking. They also identified using instructional planning
strategies such as universal design for learning. As well, identifying and planning adaptations and modifica-
tions was considered an essential support.

Mindsets
Among the 379 coded excerpts generated within the Mindsets domain, the research team categorized nine
distinct descriptors. Overall, the notion of autonomy supported mindsets emerged. By far, the majority of
comments converged around seven subelements of self-determination.

Skills associated with mindsets.  Self-determination skills were predominantly identified and were organized
across seven distinct elements. Taking ownership for learning and planning (e.g., leading their Individualized
Education Program [IEP] meetings) was identified multiple times, as was learning about rights and responsi-
bilities to self-advocate. Participants also identified the importance of communicating choices, feelings, and
reflections; and receptively understanding social exchanges and personal boundaries. Developing friendships
with peers supportive of social communication was identified. Finally, some noted unique traits as elements of
mindsets, including student alertness, energy levels, and independence.

Opportunities to develop mindsets.  Participants indicated the importance of providing students with a range
of academic and social experiences to practice new skills, make mistakes, and receive corrective feedback.
10 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 00(0)

Such opportunities were characterized as needing to be autonomy supportive, flexible, and positive. Engag-
ing in active learning was another common response among experts related to mindsets to ensure students
are motivated to learn. Other comments included respecting individual learning processes and setting high
expectations for engagement, thereby reducing learned helplessness and complacency.

Supports needed for mindsets.  Two broad characteristics emerged: sense of belonging and outcome expecta-
tions. Several participants described the need to have a strong sense of belonging in core curriculum and the
self-perception of being an active member of the community when engaged in meaningful roles. The sec-
ond area more broadly described strengths-based approaches leading to college and career outcomes. Sup-
ports from families and friends were also noted, as was the use of person-centered planning. Finally,
participants advocated that teacher expectations must be positive if students are to develop growth
mindsets.

Learning Processes
Thirteen general descriptors were generated from among 352 coded excerpts associated with the learning
processes, with the majority being skills. Fewer descriptors emerged for supports, while only one descriptor
was relevant to opportunities to engage in learning processes.

Skills to access learning processes.  Among the nine descriptors associated with skills, the most prevalent were
foundational skills for accessing learning (e.g., waiting turn, raising hand, note taking, following direc-
tions). Self-determination and self-advocacy were also widely identified. Personal agency and advocating
for needed accommodations and adaptations were described. Scheduling and organizational skills were also
identified as necessary learning processes for postsecondary education and future employment.

Opportunities to practice learning processes.  Collaborating with peers in general education classes emerged
as the only descriptor within the Learning Processes domain. Most of the excerpts focused on how students
can learn in partnership with others, and the need to provide opportunities to work collaboratively to solve
problems. Learning processes included group study skills, reciprocity, communication repair strategies, and
observational learning. Peer engagement included both peers without disabilities and “near peers” (i.e.,
those with disabilities who have had similar experiences).

Supports associated with learning processes.  A prevalent support that emerged focused on access to general
learning supports and strategies. The comments designated types of learning strategies (e.g., mnemonics,
graphic organizers), as well as supports and technologies (e.g., assistive technology, progress monitoring,
mobile devices). Universal design for learning as well as accommodations, adaptations, and modifications
were explicitly identified to ensure supportive learning across settings. Participants noted that learning
strategies instruction must occur across all grade levels. Finally, it was articulated that students must have
access to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and multiple methods of communication to
engage in self-regulated learning.

Interpersonal Engagement
Interpersonal engagement accounted for 320 unique excerpts that were collapsed into nine descriptors.
Interpersonal skills and opportunities to engage accounted for eight of the nine characteristics, whereas only
one support was noted as a descriptor.

Skills associated with interpersonal engagement.  The top skill identified by the majority of experts emphasized
social pragmatics—understanding and recognizing the perspectives of others. Social problem-solving,
adaptability, empathy, and responding appropriately across family, friends, and coworkers were skills con-
sidered highly relevant. Self-determination skills for interpersonal engagement was prevalent, as
Morningstar et al. 11

was conversational and social interaction skills, which focused on knowing how to initiate, sustain, and
terminate conversations. Finally, a general category addressed communication skills, including using AAC.
It was noted that both receptive and expressive communication skills for relating relevant topics, interests,
and feelings were required.

Opportunities to engage with others.  Collaboration and teamwork were identified as essential elements for
interpersonal engagement. Another descriptor focused on the types of opportunities to which students need
to be exposed (e.g., classes, extracurricular, career settings). Finally, friendships and social engagement
emerged as critical facets of social communication, with a strong focus on supporting students to develop
interpersonal skills as well as common experiences that may develop into friendships.

Supports for interpersonal engagement.  Participants focused almost exclusively on supporting student inter-
personal engagement through peer support and peer networks. The participants articulated that structures
for paired or group learning can be supportive and beneficial across a range of social experiences, including
social decision making, leadership, professionalism, relationships, and sexuality. Support for prosocial and
positive behaviors was also identified. Some experts explicitly described positive behavioral supports, but
very few comments were generated related to this topic.

Transition Competencies
The 315 comments identified as directly related to transition competencies exhibited a slightly different
structure than the findings for the other CCR domains. The excerpts were collapsed into two broad areas:
supporting self-determination and transition planning (Table 1), and supports and opportunities to build
transition competencies (see Table 2). Experts recommended that transition competencies be emphasized as
a part of the other five CCR domains, and not as exclusive or separate curricular applications for middle and
high schools. The participants emphasized that transition competencies occur in inclusive contexts and
should not be used to justify removal of youth with severe disabilities from accessing secondary curricula
and contexts.

Supporting self-determination and transition planning.  It was understood that students should be supported to
acquire the ability to develop long- and short-term goals leading to postschool outcomes. Assistance with
self-directing supports and services was articulated, as was using resources to access relevant community
supports. Being supported to self-direct meant taking increasing responsibility for portions of the day.
Finally, experts identified opportunities and supports for students to communicate with health providers
about self-care and health needs as necessary.
Experts reiterated that engaging in planning for adulthood requires early knowledge and access to tran-
sition-related resources, services, and supports. Person-centered approaches with high rates of student and
family engagement were described. Students must have ownership of the process with the intended out-
come of tying future roles to individual preferences and the freedom to explore personal interests. In addi-
tion, motivational, social, and financial supports must be considered for enacting a plan of inclusive adult
life. Finally, experts noted that early planning and high expectations for inclusive adulthood were
paramount.

Supports and opportunities to build transition competencies for adulthood.  Experts noted nine unique outcomes
and competencies that fell into two subgroups: inclusive adult outcomes and adult roles and relationships
(see Table 2). The four inclusive adult outcomes identified included community living and engagement,
employment, postsecondary education, and social engagement. Throughout these four categories, experts
provided detailed descriptions of how students with severe disabilities must be supported with essential
opportunities to build competence for success. The second subgroup focused on broader adult roles and
responsibilities and, as noted in Table 2, offered characteristics of the supports and opportunities needed to
learn and practice such skills and competencies.
12 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 00(0)

Table 2.  Supports and Opportunities to Build Transition Competencies for Adulthood.

Theme Competency Description

Inclusive adult 1. Community Support for inclusive living and community participation, with
outcomes living and opportunities for awareness of and meaningful access to community
engagement experiences. Instruction of skills and strategies to support
participation in the community (e.g., time management, transportation,
communication, self-care, task completion)
2. Employment Opportunities for inclusive and meaningful school-based and work-based
learning that are not ostracizing or demeaning. Opportunities for
paid internships leading to real work for real pay, with job-embedded
instruction and exposure to career pathways and occupations. Self-
determined job exploration, job accommodations, modifications, and
supports must be present to ensure success
3. Postsecondary Support for successful completion of transition experiences closely tied
education postsecondary success (e.g., visit a college, fill out an application, talk to
an adviser). College culture should include the range of postsecondary
options, including certificate programs and other forms of
postsecondary training. Multiple opportunities to promote awareness
of postsecondary opportunities
4. Social Being active in the community, according to interests and supports (e.g.,
engagement join a club, social organization, or volunteer services) to expand social
capital and networks. Consistent and inclusive opportunities for social
interactions to develop skills. Age appropriate inclusive activities that
allow students to take leadership and other roles within a group
Adult roles and 5. Communication Opportunity and support to initiate communication, with the use of
responsibilities assistive technology as needed. Having access to communication using
the mode most effective. Communicative competence includes dealing
with ambiguities and accepting feedback from others
6. Financial literacy Opportunity to learn and practice budgeting expenses and spending to
become a self-regulated consumer of goods and services. Maintaining
financial control with supports (e.g., bank account, ATM card). Students
have access to financial literacy coursework
7. Health and Support to learn about maintaining healthy behaviors (both physical and
wellness emotional), including healthy eating for energy and appearance
8. Relationships/ Instruction in relationships and social interactions that goes beyond how
sexuality to make a friend and includes supports that take a broader view of
human sexuality and include healthy relationships
9. Academic Instruction embeds transition competency within academic instruction in
engagement secondary grades (middle and high schools) and is intentional, ensuring
students have full opportunities to learn in inclusive educational settings

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to elicit input from expert researchers in the fields of CCR/transition, inclu-
sive education, and severe disabilities to conceptualize unique characteristics needed to ensure youth suc-
cessfully develop essential CCR skills. Within and among the CCR domains, themes specified critical
student skills pertaining to CCR domains, as well as essential supports and opportunities needed to ensure
successful development toward CCR. Second, experts reported certain skill dimensions that transcended
individual CCR domains, such as self-determination, social engagement, and communication access. We
will discuss how the findings from this study offer preliminary guidance toward alignment of CCR with
CCSS as well as alternate standards and assessments. These will be discussed as implications for future
research and practice and aligned with current issues associated with (a) operationalizing CCR within com-
mon core standards and alternate assessments, (b) ensuring sufficient supports for developing CCR, and (c)
embedding CCR development within inclusive settings.
Morningstar et al. 13

Establishing CCR AAS

This research is part of a multiphase Delphi study to establish expert consensus of critical characteristics
describing CCR for youth with severe disabilities and, therefore, these findings are exploratory. Given the
ongoing research to be completed, it may be the findings reported herein will shift as final consensus is
obtained. However, these initial qualitative findings offer new insights toward ensuring that youth gain
access to opportunities and supports necessary to achieve skills directly associated with CCR. In addition,
while the 35 participants responding to the survey were purposefully sampled from among specific areas of
expertise (CCR/transition, inclusive education severe disabilities), there may be potential bias inherent
among experts. This may have been the case with regard to the findings associated with limited descriptions
related to positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS). It may very well be that extending the
study to specifically include PBIS experts would have resulted in stronger connections to CCR. Another
limitation was the survey developed was not sufficiently piloted prior to data collection. While there was
input and guidance from a Delphi researcher, it may be that inherent flaws in the survey could influence the
findings. Despite limitations, the preliminary findings can guide future efforts in promoting secondary pro-
grams that are transition-focused, emphasize CCR, and are implemented using multiple tiers of supports.
As noted by Conley (2014), the benefits of CCSS are associated with challenging learning expectations
educators adhere to when implementing curricular, programmatic, and instructional methods more likely to
facilitate CCR. Some would argue that while CCSS is often associated with CCR, in fact, the CCSS and
state-level core standards remain inherently tied to academics as the focal point, thereby limiting students’
progress toward CCR (Mishkind, 2014). For students with severe disabilities, realizing the potential of
CCR may be even more difficult. Thurlow (2014) pointed to inherently low expectations and lack of access
to the core curriculum for such students. This sentiment was evident among the participating experts who
frequently identified critical skills, supports, and inclusive opportunities needed to ensure students were
college and career ready. Without a doubt, the most commonly identified skills across the six domains were
directly associated with those needed to access the general education curriculum and context. The findings
from this study support the necessity of ensuring that students with severe disabilities have inclusive oppor-
tunities and support to develop critical academic and nonacademic skills that all students need to be college
and career ready (Farrington et al., 2012). What distinguished the perspectives of the experts in the current
study were provisions to provide deliberate opportunities to engage in and practice critical skills, and to
ensure there are sufficient supports in place to achieve desired outcomes.
Experts described a range of skills contingent to certain CCR domains, such as literacy within academic
engagement. Importantly, experts also identified foundational skills, particularly those associated with self-
determination and communication access, as well as peer interactions, and, to a lesser extent, prosocial behav-
iors. Findings such as these are consistent with current research that communication, social engagement, and
self-determination skills support students’ access to general education curriculum and contexts (Shogren,
Wehmeyer, Palmer, Rifenbark, & Little, 2015). Research supports such skills particularly for youth with
severe disabilities in predicting successful postschool outcomes (Carter et al., 2012). How these identified
nonacademic skills align with state academic standards is much less evident from our findings and is still rela-
tively unknown for this particular group of students (Kearns et al., 2010). Clearly, future research is needed to
determine which individual skills, combined with critical supports and opportunities, are most likely to
improve outcomes for students with severe disabilities. Extending the research currently undertaken by sec-
ondary researchers (Nagaoka et al., 2015) to students with severe disabilities is recommended.

Operationalizing CCR Within Common Core and Alternate Standards

Given that CCR is closely aligned to the CCSS, it is important to frame the findings from this study with
the standards most likely to impact students with severe disabilities, that is, the AAS. For the most part, we
know that teachers have found AAS beneficial for aligning teaching to state standards and for developing
IEP goals (Restorff, Sharpe, Abery, Rodriguez, & Kim, 2012). Yet, Restorff and colleagues also found that
teachers did not think the AAS was useful for increasing opportunities for inclusion, teaching students con-
tent at grade level, or making decisions regarding curricular or instructional methods.
14 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 00(0)

Results such as these raise concerns regarding whether AAS leads to greater or lesser access to general
education curriculum (Ryndak et al., 2014) and whether it sufficiently impacts quality of life outcomes
(Kleinert et al., 2002). Our findings may indicate even greater concerns regarding the AAS for promoting
CCR. Further research is needed to determine how state and local educational agencies are aligning essen-
tial characteristics of CCR with the AAS for students with severe disabilities. To not do so may perpetuate
substantially poor adult outcomes. In fact, it has been 15 years since Kleinert and colleagues (2002) exam-
ined the extent to which alternate assessments are predictive of life outcomes (i.e., choice and decision
making, friendships and relationships, community integration, and employment outcomes). They found
little if any relationship between scores on the alternate assessment and enhanced life outcomes. It would
seem this disconnect may be an unintended outcome of AAS, with insufficient attention paid to essential
skills identified by the experts in our study referred to most often within nonacademic dimensions (e.g.,
problem-solving, learning processes, interpersonal interactions). More recently, Kleinert, Collins, Wickham,
Riggs, and Hager (2010) described procedures for embedding essential life skills aligned to AAS within
general education academic content.
Over the past several years since Kleinert and colleagues’ recommendations were published, minimal
research has emerged reporting results from the development of such interventions. Clearly, research is
needed to examine and align nascent CCR skills and domains suggested by our findings within alternate
achievement and learning standards. The findings from the first phase of our study point to the need for
further research to develop and evaluate specific alternate achievement goals aligned to CCR standards for
students with severe disabilities. In addition, it is recommended that CCR learning goals must be incorpo-
rated within state assessment measures, particularly alternate assessments most likely to be given to stu-
dents with severe disabilities. Anecdotally, it would appear states are beginning to incorporate some CCR
dimensions within standards, going above and beyond traditional academics. For example, state educational
agency personnel have described using dimensions such as critical thinking tied to state assessments through
depth of knowledge measures (Morningstar et al., 2017). However, there has been lesser attention paid to
developing or applying depth of knowledge assessments with students with severe disabilities (Kleinert
et al., 2015). Substantially more research is needed to address both current findings and ongoing concerns.

Ensuring Sufficient Supports and Opportunities for CCR

Experts in this study emphasized the importance of a wide range of supports and opportunities for develop-
ing CCR skills in natural, inclusive educational and community settings. This finding corresponds with past
research espousing access to general education settings as highly beneficial for students with severe dis-
abilities across multiple skills associated with CCR (Ryndak et al., 2014). Almost half (48%) of the descrip-
tors that emerged from this study aligned with the perspective that an essential role for special education is
to provide supports and opportunities for students to learn and practice CCR skills. Expanding research so
that educators can incorporate effective planning methods to identify CCR skills and then guide alignment
of CCR skills to alternate and general learning standards is clearly needed. Given past research noting that
special educators struggle to align unique learning needs to AAS (Restorff et al., 2012), it is essential that
research efforts design and test planning methods to guide IEP teams in how they plan for inclusive experi-
ences while providing necessary supports leading to clear CCR outcome standards. This recommendation
also compels educator preparation programs and professional development efforts to focus on evidence-
based practices to improve specific and foundational CCR skills emerging from this study with inclusive
opportunities and supports to practice targeted skills (Ruppar, Neeper, & Dalsen, 2016; Taub, McCord, &
Ryndak, 2017). Certainly, this is not yet the case among educators, and future remedies are clearly needed.
One surprising finding in the study was minimal explicit reference among experts to the need for or
importance of PBIS pertaining to the CCR domains. It is unclear why experts infrequently identified PBIS
as a support relevant to CCR, and explicit follow-up is planned for subsequent phases of the study. PBIS has
been found to offer both proximal and distal benefits to students toward achieving quality lifestyles, and it
has been established that a lack of such supports can substantially limit outcomes (Dunlap, Kincaid, &
Jackson, 2013). Therefore, future research is needed to better understand the perspectives of educators
Morningstar et al. 15

regarding the role of PBIS in secondary schools and specifically with regard to youth with severe disabili-
ties. Emergent research has confirmed that such youth are most likely left out of school-wide PBIS due to
predominant time in self-contained classrooms (Kurth & Enyart, 2016). As such, a lack of access to PBIS
may be contributing to a limited capacity to prevent challenging behaviors (Landers, Courtade, & Ryndak,
2012), which certainly reduces access to relevant inclusive CCR learning experiences given that challeng-
ing behaviors have been attributed as reasons why students are placed in more restrictive settings (Dymond,
Renzaglia, Gilson, & Slagor, 2007; Ruppar & Gaffney, 2011). Therefore, it is important to expand investi-
gations of specific prosocial skills as well as PBIS interventions necessary during secondary school that
potentially contribute to CCR.

Embedding CCR Experiences Throughout General Education

One intriguing result emerging from this study was that participants not only identified transition-related
competencies specific to youth with severe disabilities but clearly articulated that the supports and oppor-
tunities to learn be embedded within general education across all grades. They noted that transition compe-
tencies not be represented as a separate class of skills or experiences that take place separate from the
general curriculum. This may be in reaction to most high school programs whereby youth with severe dis-
abilities are separated out from same-aged peers to receive a “functional” or “life skills” curriculum (Kurth,
Born, & Love, 2016). Inherent tensions have continued among proponents of access to general education
and those who support a separate set of functional experiences (Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers, 2011;
Courtade, Spooner, Browder, & Jimenez, 2012); yet, it seems our findings point toward continued research
efforts to embed individualized CCR competencies within the daily routines and experiences of the general
education classroom (Hunt, McDonnell, & Crockett, 2012).
As counterpoint, experts in this study emphasized inclusive educational experiences with necessary sup-
ports and opportunities as the best means for obtaining CCR for youth with severe disabilities. Deeply
entrenched barriers remain that limit opportunities for students with severe disabilities to learn, including
limited access to grade-level content, general education context, and evidence-based instructional methods
and curriculum (Taub et al., 2017). Extending current research associated with effective methods for embed-
ding supports and opportunities to expand CCR skills in inclusive settings is still needed. It is compelling
to note that the array of supports and opportunities to learn CCR skills identified by experts are typically not
incorporated into state learning standards but instead are associated with how schools organize educational
systems leading to CCR (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010). Therefore, continuing to
build a line of research and practice that aligns with how general education systems operate while support-
ing the unique needs of students with severe disabilities is clearly warranted. Given the preliminary nature
of our findings, future research is needed to confirm these findings, as well as construct large-scale research
to validate a model of CCR for youth with severe disabilities that will lend itself to development of interven-
tions, supports, and services promoting the most essential skills for success.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Academic Benchmarks. (n.d.). Common Core State Standards adoption map. Retrieved from http://academicbench-
marks.com/common-core-state-adoption-map/
Ayres, K. M., Lowrey, K. A., Douglas, K. H., & Sievers, C. (2011). I can identify Saturn but I can’t brush my teeth:
What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities shifts. Education and Training in
Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 11-21.
16 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 00(0)

Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special educa-
tion. Exceptional Children, 71, 195-207. doi:10.1177/001440290507100205
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement:
Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Carter, E. W., Austin, D., & Trainor, A. A. (2012). Predictors of postschool employment outcomes for young adults
with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 50-63. doi:10.1177/1044207311414680
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
Conley, D. (2014). Common core: Development and substance. Social Policy Report, 28, 3-15.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Courtade, G., Spooner, F., Browder, D., & Jimenez, B. (2012). Seven reasons to promote standards-based instruction
for students with severe disabilities: A reply to Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers (2011). Education and Training
in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 3-13.
De Bortoli, T., Balandin, S., Foreman, P., Mathisen, B., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2012). Mainstream teachers’ experiences
of communicating with students with multiple and severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 47, 236-252.
Dedoose 7.0.23. (2016). [Computer software]. Manhattan Beach, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants. Available
from http://www.dedoose.com/
Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nomi-
nal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. doi:10.1177/105960117600100220
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored
design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dunlap, G., Kincaid, D., & Jackson, D. (2013). Positive behavior support: Foundations, systems, and quality of life. In
M. L. Wehmeyer (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability (pp. 303-316). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398786.013.013.0020
Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Gilson, C. L., & Slagor, M. T. (2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high
school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities,
32, 1-15. doi:10.2511/rpsd.32.1.1
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2007). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107-115.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., & Beechum, N. O. (2012).
Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A criti-
cal literature review. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research, The University of Chicago.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research,
15, 1277-1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
Hunt, P., McDonnell, J., & Crockett, M. A. (2012). Reconciling an ecological curricular framework focusing on quality
of life outcomes with the development and instruction of standards-based academic goals. Research and Practice
for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 37, 139-152. doi:10.2511/027494812804153471
Kearns, J. F., Kleinert, H., Harrison, B., Sheppard-Jones, K., Hall, M., & Jones, M. (2010). What does “college
and career ready” mean for students with significant cognitive disabilities? Lexington, KY. University of
Kentucky.
Kearns, J. F., Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H. L., O’Regan Kleinert, J., & Thomas, M. K. K. (2009). Characteristics
of and implications for students participating in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement
standards. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 3-14. doi:10.1177/0022466909344223
Kleinert, H. L., Collins, B. C., Wickham, D., Riggs, L., & Hager, K. D. (2010). Embedding life skills, self-determina-
tion, social relationships, and other evidence-based practices. In H. L. Kleinert & J. F. Kearns (Eds.), Alternative
assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 267-290). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Kleinert, H. L., Garrett, B., Towles, E., Garrett, M., Nowak-Drabik, K., Waddell, C., & Kearns, J. (2002). Alternate
assessment scores and life outcomes for students with significant disabilities: Are they related? Assessment for
Effective Intervention, 28, 19-30. doi:10.1177/073724770202800103
Kleinert, H. L., Towles-Reeves, E., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Fluegge, L., Weseman, L., & Kerbel, A. (2015).
Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught: Implications for general curriculum
access. Exceptional Children, 81, 312-328. doi:10.1177/0014402914563697
Krauss, S. M., Pittman, K. J., & Johnson, C. (2016). Ready by design: The science and art of youth readiness.
Washington, DC: The Forum on Youth Investment.
Morningstar et al. 17

Kurth, J. A., Born, K., & Love, H. (2016). Ecobehavioral characteristics of self-contained high school classrooms for
students with severe cognitive disability. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 41, 227-243.
doi:10.1177/1540796916661492
Kurth, J. A., & Enyart, M. (2016). Schoolwide positive behavior supports and students with significant disabilities: Where
are we? Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 41, 216-222. doi:10.1177/1540796916633083
Kurth, J. A., Morningstar, M. E., & Kozleski, E. B. (2014). The persistence of highly restrictive special education place-
ments for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39,
227-239. doi:10.1177/1540796914555580
Landers, E., Courtade, G., & Ryndak, D. (2012). Including students with severe disabilities in school-wide positive
behavioral interventions and supports: Perceptions of state coordinators. Research and Practice for Persons With
Severe Disabilities, 37, 1-8. doi:10.2511/027494812800903256
Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and
practice. Review of Educational Research, 83, 432-479. doi:10.3102/0034654313480891
Mazzotti, V. L., Rowe, D. A., Cameto, R., Test, D. W., & Morningstar, M. E. (2013). Identifying and promot-
ing 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 Individuals, 36, 140-151.
doi:10.1177/2165143413503365
Mishkind, A. (2014). Definitions of college and career readiness: An analysis by state. Washington, DC: American
Institutes for Research.
Morningstar, M. E. (2017). Transition to adulthood for youth with severe and multiple disabilities. In F. P. Orelove, D.
Sobsey, & D. Gilles (Eds.), Educating students with severe and multiple disabilities: A collaborative approach (5th
ed., pp. 465-508). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Morningstar, M. E., Kurth, J. A., & Johnson, P. E. (2017). Examining national trends in educational placements for
students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 3-12. doi:10.1177/0741932516678327
Morningstar, M. E., Kurth, J. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Shogren, K. A. (2017). High quality educational programs for
students with intellectual disability in high school. In M. L. Wehmeyer & K. A. Shogren (Eds.), Research-based
practices for educating students with intellectual disability (pp. 432-449). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Morningstar, M. E., Lombardi, A., Fowler, C. H., & Test, D. W. (2017). A college and career readiness framework for
secondary students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40, 79-91.
doi:10.1177/2165143415589926
Nagaoka, J., Farrington, C. A., Ehrlich, S. A., & Heath, R. D. (2015). Foundations for young adult success: A develop-
mental framework. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research, The University of Chicago.
Qualtrics. (2015). [Computer software]. Provo, UT: Author. Available from https://www.qualtrics.com/
Restorff, D. E., Sharpe, M., Abery, B., Rodriguez, M., & Kim, N. K. (2012). Teacher perceptions of alternate assess-
ments based on alternate achievement standards: Results from a three-state survey. Research and Practice for
Persons With Severe Disabilities, 37, 185-198. doi:10.2511/027494812804153570
Ruppar, A. L., & Gaffney, J. S. (2011). Individualized education program team decisions: A preliminary study of
conversations, negotiations, and power. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 11-22.
doi:10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.11
Ruppar, A. L., Neeper, L. S., & Dalsen, J. (2016). Special education teachers’ perceptions of preparedness to teach
students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 41, 273-286.
doi:10.1177/1540796916672843
Ryndak, D. L., Taub, D., Jorgensen, C. M., Gonsier-Gerdin, J., Arndt, K., Sauer, J., . . .Allcock, H. (2014). Policy and
the impact on placement, involvement and progress in general education: Critical issues that require rectification.
Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39, 65-74. doi:10.1177/1540796914533942
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781446282243.n12
Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Rifenbark, G. G., & Little, T. D. (2015). Relationships between self-
determination and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 256-267.
doi:10.1177/0022466913489733
Stemler, S. E. (2015). Emerging trends in content analysis. In R. Scott & S. Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging trends in the
social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1-14). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Taub, D. A., McCord, J. A., & Ryndak, D. L. (2017). Opportunities to learn for students with extensive support needs:
A context of research supported practices for all in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022466917696263
18 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 00(0)

Thurlow, M. L. (2014). Dispelling misperceptions: Shifting focus from whether standards-based reforms result in better
outcomes to how they can result in better outcomes! A response to Ryndak et al. Research and Practice for Persons
With Severe Disabilities, 39, 154-155.

Author Biographies
Mary E. Morningstar is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of Kansas specializing
in educator preparation for college and career readiness for youth with disabilities.
Alison L. Zagona is an assistant professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of New Mexico,
and her research is focused on inclusive education and instructional and social supports for students with significant
disabilities
Hatice Uyanik is a doctoral student in the Department of Special Education at the University of Kansas and has a spe-
cific research interest in self-determination of youth with disabilities.
Jingrong Xie is a doctoral student in Department of Special Education at the University of Kansas with a specialized
research interest in Universal Design for Learning and Mobile Learning to support youth with diverse needs.
Stephanie Mahal is a doctoral student in the Department of Special Education at the University of Kansas and has a
specific research interest on self-determination for individuals with disabilities in higher education.

Received: December 12, 2016

Final Acceptance: May 3, 2017
Editor in Charge: Sharon Darling