Equity in Access and Opportunity for Bright Future

by Kathleen Marie Oertle

 

The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 (Perkins IV) supports the development, improvement, and expanded accessibility to information regarding career awareness and planning for students (and parents, as appropriate) and educational preparation for career goals and expectations. Further, Perkins IV endorses equal access for students to a full range of technical preparation programs and appropriate technology. Access to opportunities for learning, earning, and bonding are linked to raising the level of one’s quality of life; this is universally true. Alongside the power of access is the strength in having the freedom to choose what one learns, where one works and lives, and with whom one socializes. The possibilities for successful outcomes are most likely when individuals determine their life experiences for themselves; this is also universally true.

Access and self-determination are frequently now a part of some people’s lives. However, many people are routinely excluded from, denied access to, and prevented from self-determined participation in opportunities that are linked to quality of life (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Cameto, & Levine, 2005; Wittenburg & Maag, 2002). In fact, while individuals, parents, leaders, educators, other professionals, and researchers continue to advocate for and work toward increased access and opportunity, it is still typical for people to experience barriers that preclude inclusion (DiLeo, 2007). This is especially true for those who have been historically under-represented, underserved, and labeled (e.g., students who are: minority; first-generation postsecondary education, low-income; immigrants; special populations).

The power of education is evident in the data. Youth who experience any one or more of the following predictors are more likely to leave school: 1) attend schools in urban school districts, 2) live at or below poverty, 3) are part of an ethnic minority group, 4) have a single parent, or 5) have a disability status. As a result of leaving, they are less likely to gain access to viable employment, further education, safe housing, supportive social relationships, and meaningful community inclusion (Swanson, 2008; Thurlow, Sinclair, & Johnson, 2002). Rather many high school noncompleters are engaged in negative community participation by being stopped by police, arrested, on parole, smoking cigarettes, using drugs, having unprotected sex, and becoming single parents (Wagner, 2008). Further, people with less than a high school education are nearly 4 times more likely to be unemployed than someone with some college education but no degree (Postsecondary Education Opportunity, 2008).

Educational attainment levels have been linked to poverty rates. Nearly 32% of people with no high school diploma live in poverty compared to 10% of people who have some college but less than a 4-year degree (Postsecondary Education Opportunity, 2008). It is obvious that unemployment and poverty are linked to a lack of education. The opportunity to earn a living and be self-supporting is a universally held goal. Access to meaningful education provides a connection to employment opportunities. Employment is more than economic value, but important social and psychological value (National Council on Disability, 2007).

There are many barriers to access and opportunity. Some of these barriers include dropping out, limited planning and preparation, inadequate self-determination knowledge and skills, limited career development, lack of supportive relationships, inequity, fragile cross-system collaboration (e.g., general, career and technical, and special education, secondary and postsecondary education systems, education and business and industry), and insufficient professional development. Nevertheless, if we wish to halt the nation’s decline in educational attainment, we must continue to ask which policies, programs, and curricula place students at a greater disadvantage, and which are more successful in helping them succeed (Green, 2006). Various measures are being taken to address barriers to access and opportunity resulting in some promising practices and are explained more fully for consideration as areas to address in the implementation of Perkins IV.

 

Promising Practices

 

Dropout Prevention and Recovery

One size does not fit all. This is where program flexibility is critical. Schools cannot do the prevention and recovery work alone (Hoyle & Collier, 2006). There are many potential collaborators with similar interests such as those involved with the Perkins Act, Rehabilitation Act, IDEA, Higher Education Act, and Workforce Investment Act. Together investing in the future is possible through the education of our youth by doing “Whatever It Takes” (Martin & Halperin, 2006). Continued attention including funding and research is necessary to further strengthen the efforts to keep youth engaged and re-engaged in their knowledge, skill, and esteem development.

Some of the known predictors for why students leave school are categorized as alterable and some are status. Alterable situations are those that educators, community members, employers, parents, and students can influence (e.g., attendance, support services). Status situations are considered extremely difficult or unlikely to change (e.g., disability label, socioeconomic status). The differences between alterable and status predictors have important influences over the outcomes of efforts to prevent students from ending their secondary education prematurely (Thurlow et al., 2002). Thus it is recommended these differences be considered during program development.

 

Dropout prevention strategies. Keeping youth in high school until they earn their diplomas is ideal and critical for future access and opportunities. Using strategies to prevent as many students as possible from leaving school prematurely will continue to be important. The 15 National Dropout Prevention Center (NDPC) Strategies are evidence-based and provide an excellent framework for prevention programs. Further, the strategies have been used to evaluate program quality (Hoyle & Collier, 2006).

 

The 15 National Dropout Prevention Center Strategies

1. Systemic renewal
2. Professional development
3. Early childhood education
4. Alternative schooling
5. Instructional technologies
6. Service learning
7. Conflict resolution
8. After-school experiences
9. Community collaboration
10. Family involvement
11. Reading and writing programs
12. Individualized instruction using learning style/multiple intelligence/universal design
13. Mentoring and tutoring
14. Safe learning environments
15. Career and technical education

While dropout prevention programs based on these 15 strategies are built on a solid foundation, incorporating these strategies throughout school programming is most valuable so that all students benefit. The NDPC 15 strategies are backed by evidence and proven effectiveness for increasing educational access and opportunities that lead to successful outcomes (e.g., employment, continued education, and social relationships). These strategies are specific enough to provide a structure for program development but general enough for local flexibility.

 

Recovery strategies. While preventing students from leaving school prematurely is important, most likely there always will be some youth who leave. Today, recovery programs are critical because of the numbers of youth who are already out-of-school and those who are anticipated to leave in the future. Both groups need to re-engage in education and need a reentry process to do so.

The evidence that is available about successful recovery programs consistently supports the combination of academic and career training (i.e., Career and Technical Education). Career and Technical Education provides pathways to employment by design, creating relevance for students by giving them a reason to return for further education. In addition, programs for out-of-school youth that provide various means for earning their high school diploma rather than a GED are shown to be linked with higher monthly earnings and greater rates of postsecondary education enrollment (Martin & Halperin, 2006).

While “there is no one perfect model or blueprint for successful dropout recovery…the following [are] characteristics of effective dropout recovery efforts” that can assist in program development and quality evaluation as presented in Martin & Halperin’s (2006), American Youth Policy Forum, “Whatever It Takes: How Twelve Communities Are Reconnecting Out-of-School Youth”. The characteristics are summarized as eight evidence-based traits. These traits are seen as the root causes for successful re-engagement and effective program practices for attainment of a high school diploma or GED and are endorsed by the National Education Association ([NEA], 2008).

 

The Eight American Youth Policy Recovery Traits

1. Open-Entry/Open Exit
2. Flexible scheduling and Year-round learning
3. Teachers as coaches, facilitators, and crew leaders
4. Real-world, career-oriented curricula
5. Opportunities for employment
6. Clear codes of conduct with consistent enforcement
7. Extensive support services
8. A portfolio of options for a varied group

The overarching theme is that these traits are all learner-centered. The main components of the recovery mission are to reconnect with youth and young adults, engage learners in small learning communities (e.g., 15 students or less), provide supportive, respectful, and safe (emotionally and physically) learning environments, and teach with academic rigor. Academics need to be connected to career training that is relevant to the returning learner based on their interests and goals (Cook, 2005; Hansen & Toso, 2007; Lee & Breen, 2007; Quinn, Poirier, Faller, Gable, & Tonelson, 2006; United State Government Accountability Office, 2008; Wyn, Stokes, & Tyler, 2004). The AYP recovery traits are the frame for effective practices (ACTE, 2007; Chmelynski, 2006; Lewis, 2006; Martin & Halperin, 2006). In addition, Martin and Halperin recommend building off of and networking with the national dropout recovery programs (e.g., National Guard Youth ChalleNGe program, Jobs for America’s Graduates, YouthBuild, Youth Service and Conservation Corps, and Job Corps).

 

Universal Design for Learning Principles

Physical spaces have evolved through universal design in architecture by making buildings and other public spaces more welcoming to all people who may use them. The availability of ramps, elevators, curb cutouts, and signage with Braille and other languages in addition to English are all examples of universally designed architecture (Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, & Jackson, 2002; Pisha & Coyne, 2001). Further development of universal design philosophy has expanded to spaces beyond physical.

Neuroscience research has allowed further understanding of mental and emotional spaces by providing knowledge about the functioning of the mind and brain as they relate to learning (Dolan & Hall, 2001; Pisha & Coyne, 2001). This information has added knowledge and skills regarding the needs of and successful strategies for working with diverse learners. The combination of universal design and brain-based learning concepts has expanded ideas about the conditions required for a climate of inclusion and access to education and learning for all students.

Universal design for learning is a conceptual framework that combines knowledge, principles, and strategies from architecture, neuroscience, and education in an effort to create learning spaces that are inclusive and accessible for all learners by focusing on the person's strengths and preferences rather than their limitations (Hehir, 2002). Universal design for learning builds from “assets incorporating positive language, is visionary and strategic, and most importantly, is student-centered. Moving from a deficit to an asset model affords students academic opportunities that might otherwise be unavailable to them” (Green, 2006, p. 26). Universal design’s architectural origins, associated legislation, and the impact of technological advances specifically in the areas of brain-based learning, use of assistive technology, and multi-media provide a basis for understanding the working definition for universal design for learning. Three principles for universal design for learning: (a) multiple, flexible methods of presentation, (b) multiple, flexible methods of expression and apprenticeship, and (c) multiple, flexible options for engagement are suggested to guide the design elements for enhancing opportunities to improve educational outcomes (Blamires, 1999; Hitchcock & Stahl, 2003; Scott, McGuire, & Foley, 2003).

Traditional foundations in education focus on the needs of a core group of students. Approaching the development, implementation, and assessment of general curriculum instructional methods and materials by designing them with a homogeneous, core group in mind creates an environment full of barriers for many students. Data supporting population diversity and neuroscience evidence tell us that students are a heterogeneous group with many different ways of learning. Therefore, to meet the instructional needs of students, it does not make logical sense to continue to approach dissemination of education in the traditional manner (Hitchcock et al., 2002).

Growing student diversity, educational reforms, and technological advances are pushing the utilization of more inclusive educational practices. By shifting thinking from the norm of modifications, add-ons, and retrofitted supports to designing inclusive curriculum right from the start, opportunities for students with diverse abilities are created that would not be available otherwise. Universal design for learning allows for multiple, flexible, delivery and material options to be built right in, promising inclusion and accessibility for all learners. However, barriers to universal design for learning exist (e.g., elitism, lack of availability of and professional development on how to use computer-based technologies, compatibility of operating systems and applications, unequal school resources, change is difficult, heavy reliance on computer-based technology) that threaten the widespread application of these principles (Oertle & Trach, 2008; Pisha & Coyne, 2001; Silver, Bourke, & Strehorn, 1998).

Silver et al. (1998) offered these recommendations to further the utilization of universally designed instruction: (a) develop and provide faculty training with specific strategies for universal instruction design, (b) development of workbooks with sample strategies, and syllabi, and (c) provide on-line education of universal instructional design training. In addition, further research is needed to gather and analyze data regarding universal design for learning curriculum materials, student learning activities, instructional strategies, and the impact for diverse students (Hitchcock & Stahl, 2003; Scott, McGuire, & Foley, 2003; Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2003).

The challenge for future universal design for learning is to use new technology to do new and innovative things. Most often at present we use new technologies to do old and status quo things (e.g., traditional textbooks converted to digital formats) (Rose, 2001). Experimental practice is necessary to openly explore the potential of universal design for learning. Through practice, creative implementation of strategies can occur broadening our view of ways to support and maintain inclusive spaces for information exchange and learning for all learners.

 

Self-Determination

The process of moving from secondary education to post-school setting may seem straightforward. Then again, we know how difficult this shift can be from our own experiences. Further, for many transitioning youth this process remains particularly unclear and in some cases nearly impossible (Oertle & Trach, 2007). Too often students are not taught how to self-manage their lives before they are faced with the realities of adulthood (Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996). Lack of self-determination knowledge coupled with a lack of how to use these skills to gain access and opportunity leaves youth and young adults in a state of confusion and dependence. Access and opportunities in education are not only improved by the inclusion of the core competencies of self-determination, but it also enhances the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for transition to adult roles (Wehmeyer, 2005). Self-determination provides students with opportunities to think more critically, take risks, and problem-solve without penalty. “Curricula that do not facilitate critical thinking restrict learning and encourage deficit thinking”(Green, 2006, p. 25).

Individuals who are self-determined work toward assuming greater control over the situations in their life. Taking action is one’s life is a step to becoming more autonomous. Individuals who are self-determined make choices as needed, are aware that they have control over how they respond to situations and environments, and go beyond simply reacting to conditions. Self-determined people make decisions, solve problems, advocate for themselves and set, and achieve their own goals. People who are self-determined use these skills to access self-driven opportunities.

A common misperception of self-determination is that it means an individual must have complete and absolute control. This is not true. Being self-determined is understanding when to relinquish control to others who might be more qualified (e.g., a teacher or career counselor) and know how to access the necessary resources (e.g., financial aid). Self-determination can also mean allowing oneself to depend on others who can offer support (e.g., utilizing a mentor) (Wehmeyer, 2005).

Self-determined behaviors are promoted when students have opportunities for development in environments that support skill attainment and use. Practice of self-determination skills needs to be allowed and routinely encouraged. Educators need to provide the appropriate instruction and support for students to build their self-determination skills because these skills have been linked to better outcomes. For example, Wehmeyer & Schwartz (1997) examined the impact of self-determination on positive adult outcomes. Individuals whose self-determination skills rated higher were more likely to go on to postsecondary education, be employed, have found work on their own, have secured checking and savings accounts, and to be involved in their communities. Career development, which is a key component in the preparation for adulthood, can be enhanced by infusing self-determination instruction and application (Wehmeyer, Lattimore, Jorgensen, Palmer, Thompson, & Schumaker, 2003).

 

The self-determined career development model. This career development model is based on the principles of self-determination and self-directed learning. At the heart of this model is self-directed planning for developing individual career goals and plans. The self-directed planning enables students to apply a problem-solving, goal oriented strategy to develop their career opportunities. The model presented here is a modified, four phase Self-Determined Career Development Model based on Wehmeyer (2005)’s three phase model.

The Self-Determined Career Development Model was modified to strengthen the embedded critical thinking scaffolds. These scaffolds empower students while building upon their confidence to take control of their own advanced learning through systematic and critical reflection. “The learner cannot, by definition, know what they have yet to learn, but they can reflect upon their experience, anticipate possibilities, act on the basis of these and reflect again upon each new experience” (Harri-Augstein & Thomas, 1991, p. 3). Utilizing critical thinking scaffolds to support and encourage the use of self-determination skills and reflection creates a process for both formative and summative evaluation by way of on-going, self-reflection and problem-solving.

Each phase of the Self-determination Career Development Model (see Table 1) is directed by a separate problem for students to solve. Students are supported through each of the instructional phases by answering four means-end questions that are steps inherent in a problem solving process. The questions are intentionally consistent across instructional situations so that the individual learns the means-end approach. In each phase, individuals must identify: 1) the problem, 2) potential solutions to the problem, 3) barriers to solving the problem, and 4) the potential outcomes of each solution. As students move through each of the phases, they are encouraged to review their own needs through the question and answer process. Facilitators are encouraged to help students think about the questions, clarify what each question means, and determine what needs to happen in order to reach their goals (Wehmeyer, 2005).

Students use the information they gather from the answers to questions in each phase to self-monitor and self-assess their progress toward the goal and, if needed, revise the action plan or goal accordingly. As a result, students who learn and engage in these skills have the opportunity to make choices, are better able to direct their lives, and more likely to become lifelong learners. Learning self-determination skills for career development provides students with the knowledge, skills, and ability to: 1) plan for their futures, 2) make meaningful decisions about their lives, 3) take risks, and 4) evaluate and make changes to their life circumstances (Wehmeyer, 2005).

 

The Diversity Scorecard Project

While access to postsecondary education for diverse populations has increased there continues to be significant inequities in educational outcomes. These outcome inequities are especially true for students from minority groups (e.g., African and Latino Americans), with low socioeconomic status, who have disabilities, or who are female. In an effort to address equity issues, the Diversity Scorecard project was developed by the Center for Urban Education in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California (USC). The Diversity Scorecard project began in 2001. The intention of this project was to increase the successful educational outcomes of African and Latino Americans by working with 14 urban higher education institutions (two- and four-year, public and private) (Bensimon, 2004).

 

 

Table 1
The Self-Determined Career Development Model (modified)

 

 

Phase	Problem to Solve	Questions to Answer to Solve Problem
One	What are my career or job goals?	What career and job do I want? What do I know about it now? What must change for me to get the job and career I want? What can I do to make this happen?
Two	What is my strategy?	What actions can I take to reach my career or employment goal? What could keep me from taking this action? What can I do to remove these barriers? When will I take action?
Three	What was the outcome?	What actions have I taken? What barriers have been removed? What has changed to enable me to get the job and career I want? Have I achieved what I wanted to achieve?
Four	What have I learned?	What did I do well? What do I need to do better? What has changed to enable me to get the job and career I want? What do I need to do next time?

 

A “practitioner-as-researcher” research model was utilized to systematically involve key stakeholders (faculty, administrators, and staff) in the identification of access, retention, institutional receptivity, and excellence indicators to assess and improve effectiveness (Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004). The goal was to “facilitate research by local participants that would improve their understanding of diversity on their respective campuses and influence their actions to achieve equity in educational outcomes among their students” (Bensimon et al., 2004, p. 112). The main developmental components of the Diversity Scorecard process are increasing awareness via data gathering, interpretation through data analyses, and action based on knowledge generation (Bensimon, 2004).

Whereas the Diversity Scorecard project focuses on African and Latino Americans, the same process can be utilized with any group of interest. The Diversity Scorecard provides a means to involve campus leaders in the generation of knowledge about student outcomes disaggregated by the various groups of interest (e.g., ethnicity, gender, disability). Institutional teams are charged with gathering and analyzing existing data from a variety of perspectives (i.e., access, retention, institutional receptivity, and excellence).

Bensimon and Polkinghorne (n.d.) recommend using the Equity Index, which is a quantitative method to measure equity in educational outcomes for students. The Equity Index is a ratio. The numerator of the ratio is the percentage of the students from the group of interest among all students in a given area (e.g., major). The denominator of the ratio is the percentage of the group of interest among the entire student body. For example, “if Latino students comprise 10% of the engineering majors but 25% of the student body, the Equity Index is 10/25 or 0.4. Equity is reached when the index ratio equals 1.0” (Bensimon & Polkinghorne, p. 11). From these data, measures of equity and inequity across all majors, programs, honors, faculty and staff representation, and other opportunities at the institution can be compared. These equity indicator measurements are then utilized to create their Diversity Scorecard. Once the data have been collected and analyzed, conversational learning is possible because teams have a common goal in mind. The researchers (“the outsiders”) involved with the Diversity Scorecard project facilitated the research process by crafting the problem and the framework but the equity indicator measurements were personalized by each team for their institution. The personalization of the Diversity Scorecard allows the process to be responsive for each unique situation and work culture.

The analysis of the effectiveness of the Diversity Scorecard process is two-fold, at the team and individual levels and at the institutional level. For example, did awareness of inequity occur at the team and individual level? What actions were taken as a result of this increased awareness either collectively or individually? At the institutional level, are there educational outcome data that support changes in equity? Over time, the answers to these questions can provide a way to assess whether or not progress is being made to increase equity. The baseline data provide a starting point for improvement. Then improvement targets can be set to drive actions that will be taken to lead to equity (Bensimon, 2004).

Through the research of the Diversity Scorecard project, Bensimon et al., (2004) found that the majority of those involved were surprised to find that inequity was campus-wide and pervasive. This is an extremely important finding as well as a first step. The problem of inequity cannot be addressed without awareness and recognition of its existence. A powerful fact is that the teams generated this knowledge and awareness themselves through the Diversity Scorecard process. “…when practitioners are the researchers, the knowledge they generate is more likely to produce a conceptual shift” (Bensimon et. al., p. 116). An additional finding of the Diversity Scorecard project was that participants became committed to the value of the data-driven, decision-making process. In addition, participants appeared to be empowered and were more likely to advocate for change. Therefore, disaggregating basic data, identifying goals, reporting findings to the campus President, and the next steps to establish an on-going institutional process for monitoring progress and improvement create an accountability and action process that can improve campus equity if utilized.

 

Conclusion

Many individuals face barriers to access and opportunity that must be addressed. Dropout prevention and recovery strategies, universal design for learning principles, the Self-Determined Career Model, and the Diversity Scorecard project offer promising practices to address some of the access and opportunity issues. Education and quality of life are directly connected. Access to educational opportunities is dependent on keeping students in school and having ways to recover and reengage those who leave prior to completing secondary education.

Rigorous, relevant instruction and supportive relationships are critical for engaging students. The universal design for learning principles change the approach for presenting materials, student expression, and engagement from retrofitting and accommodations to access for all learners by design. The universal design approach to learning expects and respects diverse learning using multiple strategies to connect teachers and learners.

Teaching self-determination through the application of career development builds skills for students to take responsibility for developing their own opportunities. Students who have self-determination skills know how to access resources, find assistance, and identify support. These skills can be utilized to identify opportunities throughout one’s lifetime.

The Diversity Scorecard project focus on improving equity provides tools that can be utilized to create change. Awareness, accountability, and informed decision-making are possible through documenting and evaluating the progress of those individuals who have a history of under-representation and under-preparation for postsecondary outcomes. The knowledge generated on equity and inequities can be utilized to improve access, opportunities, and educational outcomes.

Due to persistent efforts (e.g., Perkins legislation) to reduce and eliminate barriers to access and opportunity, improvements have materialized. Nevertheless much more still needs to be done to truly have access and opportunity for all learners. The practices highlighted in this article provide some evidence-based ways to continue to improve educational outcomes.

"An educational system isn't worth a great deal if it teaches young people how to make a living but doesn't teach them how to make a life."

– Source Unknown 

---

Kathleen Marie Oertle is a Ph.D. student in Special Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She currently works as a Graduate Research Assistant for the Office of Community College Research and Leadership and can be reached at oertle@illinois.edu.

---

 

References

Association for Career and Technical Education. (2007). Career and Technical Education’s role in dropout prevention and recovery, Issue Brief, Dropout Prevention and Recovery.

Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard. A learning approach to institutional change. Change, 44-52.

Bensimon, E. M., & Polkinghorne, D. E., (n.d.) Why equity matters. Implications for a democracy, Diversity Scorecard Project, University of Southern California, 1-15. Retrieved October 31, 2008, from http://www.uwsa.edu/oadd/equity/pdf/whyequitymatters.pdf

Bensimon, E. M., Polkinghorne, D. E., Bauman, G. L., & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing research that makes a difference. The Journal of Higher Education, 75,(1), 104-126.

Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the national longitudinal transition study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399-415.

Blamires, M. (1999). Universal design for learning: Re-establishing differentiation as part of the inclusion agenda? Support for Learning, 14, 158-163.

Cameto, R., & Levine, P. (2005). Changes in the employment status and job characteristics of out-of school students with disabilities. National Transition Study 2. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from http://www.nlts2.org/pdfs/str6_completereport.pdf

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act 20 U.S.C. §2301 et seq. (2006). Retrieved November 14, 2008, from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_publi...

Chmelynski, C. (2006). Getting high-school dropouts back in school. Education Digest, 2006, October.

Cook, L. (2005). School without walls: Reconnecting the disconnected at 14+. Support for Learning, 20, 90-95.

DiLeo, D. (2007). Raymond’s room. Ending the segregation of people with disabilities. St. Augustine, Florida: Training Resource Network, Inc.

Dolan, R. P., & Hall, T. E. (2001). Universal design for learning: Implications for large-scale assessment. [Electronic version]. IDA Perspectives, 27, 22-25.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational Research: An Introduction. Seventh Edition. United States of America: Allyn and Bacon.

Green, D. (2006). Historically underserved students: What we know, what we still need to know. New Directions for Community Colleges, 135, 21-28.

Harri-Augstein, E., & Thomas, L. (1991). Learning conversations: The self-organized learning way to personal and organizational growth. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Hansen, J. B., & Toso, S. J. (2007). Gifted dropouts: Personality, family, social, and school factors. Gifted Child Today, 30, 31-41.

Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. [Electronic version]. Harvard Educational Review, 72. Retrieved October 31, 2008, from http://www.edreview.org/harvard02/2002/sp02/p02hehir.htm

Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general curriculum: Universal design for learning. [Electronic version]. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35, 8-17.

Hitchcock, C., & Stahl, S. (2003). Assistive technology, universal design, universal design for learning: Improved learning opportunities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18, 45-52.

Hoyle, J. R., & Collier, V. (2006). Urban CEO superintendents’ alternative strategies in reducing school dropouts. Education and Urban Society, 39, 69-90.

Lee, T., & Breen, L. (2007). Young people’s perceptions and experiences of leaving high school early: An exploration. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 329-346.

Lewis, A. C. (2006, May). Direct from Washington, Strategies that work. Lessons to learn. Tech Directions, 65 (10), 4-5.

Martin, N., & Halperin, S. (2006). Whatever it takes: How twelve communities are reconnecting out-of-school youth. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

Martin, E. W., Martin, R., Terman, D. L. (1996). The legislative and litigation history of special education: The future of children. Special Education for Students with Disabilities, 6 (1), 25-39. Retrieved October 31, 2008, from http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol6no1ART2.pdf

National Council on Disability (2007, October). News Release, 7, 544.

National Education Association (2008). Reconnecting with out-of-school youth. Report of twelve communities, Retrieved October 31, 2008, from http://www.nea.org/dropout/reconnect08.html?mode=print

Oertle, K. M., & Trach, J. S. (2008). Universal design for learning: Stepping through the looking glass. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Manuscript in preparation.

Oertle, K. M., & Trach, J. S. (2007). Interagency collaboration: The importance of rehabilitation professionals’ involvement in transition. Journal of Rehabilitation, 73, 36-44.

Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 197-203.

Postsecondary Education Opportunity. (2008). Family income and higher education opportunity, 1970 to 2006. OPPORTUNITY, 192, Article 1, June 2008.

Quinn, M. M., Poirier, J. M., Faller, S. E., Gable, R. A., & Tonelson, S. W. (2006). An examination of school climate in effective alternative programs. Preventing School Failure, 51, 11-17.

Rose, D. (2001). Universal design for learning. [Electronic version]. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 64-7.

Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Foley, T. E. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A framework for anticipation and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs in the college classroom. Equity and Excellence in Education, 36, 40-49.

Scott, S., McGuire, J., & Shaw, S. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A new paradigm for adult instruction. [Electronic version]. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 369-79.

Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C. (1998) Universal instructional design in higher education: An approach for inclusion. Equity and Excellence in Education, 31, 47-51.

Swanson, C. B. (2008). Cities in crisis: A special analytic report on high school graduation. Editorial Projects in Education Research Center.

Thurlow, M. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Johnson, D. R. (2002). Students with disabilities who drop out of school – Implications for policy and practices. National Center On Secondary Education and Transition, Issue Brief, Examining Current Challenges in Secondary Education and Transition, 1(2).

United State Government Accountability Office (2008, February). Disconnected youth: Federal action could address some of the challenges faced by local programs that reconnect youth to education and employment. GAO Highlight.

Wagner, M. (2008). Four years out: Differences in postschool experiences of youth with disabilities who did and did not complete high school. Paper presentation. Secondary Transition State Planning Institute. Building for the future. Charlotte, North Carolina, May 7-9, 2008.

Wehmeyer, M. L (2005). Making the connection between self-determination and employment outcomes. [Teleconference presentation]. March 19, 2005, RSA Region V CRP RCEP at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattimore, J., Jorgensen, J. D., Palmer, S. B., Thompson, E., & Schumaker, K. (2003). The self-determined career development model: A pilot study. The Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 19(2), 79-87.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1997). The relationship between self-determination and quality of life for adults with mental retardation. Exceptional Children, 63, 245 - 255.

Wittenburg, D. C., & Maag, E. (2002). School to where? A literature review on economic outcomes of youth with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 17, 265 - 280.

Wyn, J., Stokes, H., & Tyler, D. (2004). Stepping stone: TAFE and ACE program development for early school leavers. National Centre for Vocational Education Research, Australian National Training Authority.