The Use of Recommended Transition Education Practices and Perceptions of Administrative Support: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

This study utilized a mixed-methods approach to explore the relationship between the implementation of recommended transition education practices and perceptions of administrative support of transition education. Utilizing a web-based survey, I surveyed 120 secondary educators across Oklahoma to determine the extent to which they reported the use of the recommended transition education practices, the importance of the practices, and their perceptions of administrative support of transition education. Additionally, survey respondents indicated the importance of the transition practices and the administrative support behaviors. To further explore the relationship in-depth, I conducted interviews with seven teachers who completed the on-line survey, as well as with three special education administrators, to understand their experiences providing and supervising transition education.Based on the results of completing the 1 to 6 Likert-type survey, teachers generally reported a high level of implementation of the transition education practices (M = 4.48, SD = 0.81) and an overall positive perception of administrative support (M = 4.40, SD = 1.21). Transition education practices related to the Individual Education Program meeting and documents received the highest ratings of implementation, while instructional practices received lower ratings of implementation. Teachers assigned the highest levels of importance to Family Involvement transition education practices and they also identified the top administrative support practices implemented as the most important practices.Four areas of transition education practices--(a) Vocational/Employment Student Development, (b) Goal Setting/Self-Advocacy/Living Skills Development, (c) Family Involvement, and (d) Program Structures/Interagency Collaboration had a small significant correlation with the overall administrative support mean. Additionally, I utilized hierarchical cluster analysis to identify three transition education practices groups implementing practices at different levels--a higher level, moderate level, and lower level--and ANOVA showed statistically significant (F(2,117) = 8.993, p <.001) mean differences in perceptions of administrative support across the transition education groups. The post hoc power at .97 was strong and the effect size medium to large (partial &#951;2 = .13) (Green & Salkind, 2008). Tuckey's post hoc comparisons revealed a statistically significant difference between the means of the Higher-Transition Education Practice (TEP) group with the Moderate-TEP group (p = .003) 95% CI [0.2315,1.3848] and Lower-TEP group (p <.001) 95% CI [0.3664,1.6220].Finally, the qualitative data revealed three themes: (1) Competing priorities: Balancing individual needs of secondary students with disabilities; (2) Partnerships: Collaborating to increase opportunities for transition education; and (3) Communication: Recognizing success, planning, and capacity building. Both special education teachers and administrators identified administrative support for instruction from the special education administrator, with teachers providing the ideas and drive for the program, while school site administrators provided building and management support, such as space and release time for training.Self-reported data and the selective group of participants limit the generalization of the results, but provide an initial understanding of the recommended transition practices implemented and viewed as important by teachers. Additionally, these results provide a start to understanding how to assist administrators to provide the needed supports to educators in order to enable their use of recommended transition education practices