How Public Input Shapes the Clerc Center's Priorities:

Identifying Critical Needs in Transition from School
to Postsecondary Education and Employment

By Judith M. LeNard, M.Ed.

The Stimulus Paper on Transition Programming

The centerpiece of the process for gathering public input about the transition priority area was a paper written by two faculty members in the Gallaudet University Counseling Department, Dr. Marita Danek and Dr. Howard Busby (1997). The paper, Concepts and Premises in Transition Planning and Programming: Empowerment Through Partnership, explored the transition from high school to postsecondary life as a major challenge for most deaf and hard of hearing students. In describing transition, Danek and Busby note:

Although predictable—and a challenge their hearing counterparts also face—the transition process…often involves leaving a relatively supportive special education system, complete with its complementary services and trained personnel, for the world of adult living and employment, which typically does not provide the same level of services and support. It involves letting go of the structured role of a student for the multiple and fluid roles of adulthood. (Danek & Busby, 1997, p.1; 1999, p. 1)2

Danek and Busby organized their stimulus paper around four issues that they identified as salient to the transition process for each deaf or hard of hearing student:

• educational issues,
• rehabilitation issues,
• environmental issues, and
• family issues.

In 17 premises on the role of the school, the counselor, the curriculum, the family, adult service programs, and employers, Danek and Busby laid out ideas for confronting major issues in transition programming. This well-informed, well-researched, and sometimes provocative paper was designed to stimulate thought and discussion about critical issues in transition. Excerpts provide insight into some of the issues:

Premise 1: Adoption of a philosophy that recognizes the leadership role of schools in the transition process will help ensure a seamless transition to adulthood for all deaf and hard of hearing youth.

Research in the past decade has portrayed a discouraging picture of the postschool experiences of young deaf and hard of hearing adults, including (a) high unemployment/underemployment rates, (b) low rates of full-time employment among those employed, and (c) low rates of participation in postsecondary education. Currently, large numbers of deaf and hard of hearing youth are receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and are uninvolved in any productive activity (Bullis, Davis, Bull, & Johnson, 1997; Lam, 1994). (Danek & Busby, 1999, p. 7)

Premise 6: Adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum that is outcome-oriented will promote the acquisition of knowledge and skills that are important for productive and satisfying lives for deaf and hard of hearing students.

In the 21st century, our lives will become increasingly complex. If deaf youth are to access the social systems they need, become self-advocates, develop healthy lifestyles, and meet the demands of the workplace, they must learn basic skills for life: interpersonal, decision-making, and coping skills, in addition to learning about and trying out careers. (Danek & Busby, 1999, p.13)

Premise 18: An ecologically sound transition program includes peers as positive role models and mentors.

Peers can provide a safe and relevant vantage point from which to view the transition process. They can support, inform, encourage, confront, and communicate in ways that adults rarely can. They can model success, validate frustrations, combat isolation and demoralization, and provide direction when life appears riddled with stumbling blocks. (Lynch & Lynch, 1997) (Danek & Busby, 1999, p. 28)

Danek and Busby's stimulus paper was used in a variety of ways to capture the opinions of professionals and parents concerned about the transition of deaf and hard of hearing students from high school into postsecondary education and employment. Other premises from Danek and Busby's 1997 paper will be employed to examine the information gathered through the public input process.

National Dialogue on Transition

The two-day National Dialogue on Transition, held at Gallaudet University on January 11 and 12, 1998, was a forum for discussing the issues and needs in transition programming for deaf and hard of hearing youth. Eleven experts in the field of transition were invited to discuss the challenges that face deaf and hard of hearing youth as they move from high school into postsecondary life. Groups represented at the National Dialogue included:

• parents,
• researchers,
• transition specialists,
• counselors,
• academicians,
• employers,
• teachers, and
• rehabilitation specialists.

Two-thirds of the participants worked with deaf and hard of hearing youth and young adults in various areas of transition programming and research. The rest represented expertise in the transition of students with other disabilities or students without disabilities.

While Danek and Busby's stimulus paper acted as a catalyst to focus participants' attention on some of the issues to be discussed, the major part of the National Dialogue focused on those needs in transition programming that were most critical and yet unmet. The discussion was vigorous and informative. Each participant was asked to name the two most critical unmet needs in transition programming and to explain the rationale for his or her choices. These results are discussed in the third section, "Results from the Public Input Process on Transition."

Questionnaires on Transition

Danek and Busby's stimulus paper on transition programming was also used to gather responses from a broader group of individuals interested in the transition of deaf and hard of hearing students. Two questionnaires and the stimulus paper were sent to 67 persons with experience and expertise in the field of transition. These individuals were nominated by professionals in the Clerc Center, Gallaudet faculty members, and the other transition experts previously contacted. One questionnaire asked for specific reactions to Danek and Busby's paper. The other questionnaire asked individuals to respond to the questions based on their own experiences. Some of the questions on this experience-based questionnaire included queries about the greatest challenge they had faced in working with deaf and hard of hearing adolescents, whether the transition needs of deaf and hard of hearing students differed from those of hearing students, and keys to successful transition programming. Fourteen individuals responded to both questionnaires. The low number of responses may have been a reflection on the time needed to complete the task and the time of year the questionnaires were distributed (between Thanksgiving and Christmas).

Recognizing that not all individuals would have the time or the inclination to read the stimulus paper and respond, the experience-based questionnaire was also distributed to an additional 75 persons within the same time frame. These names were selected specifically because they were parents and practitioners with current experience in working with deaf and hard of hearing adolescents, or young deaf adults, making the transition from high school to postsecondary life. Responses from all sources brought the total number of completed experience-based questionnaires to 40. The responses to this questionnaire were broadly based. Two-thirds of the respondents reported affiliations with public schools, and one-third indicated affiliation with center schools for the deaf. Parents, counselors, and rehabilitation staff members each represented 25 percent of the respondents in the sample. The last 25 percent was made up of researchers, social workers, and staff development professionals. The sample was evenly divided among small town, suburban, and rural respondents.

Wishing to increase the number of responses, Danek and Busby asked that their paper be sent to an additional 257 individuals. They identified these individuals from among their colleagues in the fields of transition, rehabilitation, and postsecondary education, both at Gallaudet and across the nation. The stimulus paper was sent to these individuals along with a letter from the Clerc Center asking for feedback on the three broad questions directly related to the paper. There were 41 responses, some several pages in length. These 41 responses, plus the 14 responses received from the first mailing in November and the discussion from the National Dialogue, were used by Danek and Busby to revise their paper. This revised paper was published in 1999 as a part of the Clerc Center's Sharing Ideas series. The revised paper incorporated a number of minor expansions and modifications to the original 17 premises, but the basic language and conceptual thrust remain the same. The major revision is the addition of a new premise (Premise 5 in the revised paper) emphasizing the importance of an appropriate education for non-college bound students:

Premise 5: Schools must recognize their responsibility to prepare non-college bound youth for the workforce or entry into appropriate technical-vocational training.

. . . the emphasis has been on a baccalaureate degree for all, or at least some, postsecondary training. . . . This philosophical bias, unfortunately, has not been advantageous for the large percentage of deaf and hard of hearing students who either do not enter postsecondary programs or who drop out without completing a postsecondary program (Lam, 1994). It encourages students and schools to enter into a type of magical thinking that says real life is years away and there are many years to acquire the skills of adulthood while continuing to be educated. Worse, it encourages schools to abrogate their leadership responsibility for the transition process. (Danek & Busby, 1999, p. 12)

All of the responses to the public input strategies provided valuable information to the Clerc Center on the issues in transition. The stimulus paper and National Dialogue continue to be very potent processes for quickly collecting important information on the issues. The experience-based questionnaire added an important tool to the collection process. In the future, distribution will be shifted to more optimal time periods, and the format of the questionnaire will be modified to capture more precise demographic information. The practice of careful targeting of individuals with specific expertise and interest yields better information with less effort, and the process of using a variety of strategies to collect information ensures responses will represent a broad range of constituents.

2 This reference to Danek and Busby's paper has a double citation because the original paper, written in 1997, was used to collect public input. The paper was revised based on feedback to the authors gathered through the Clerc Center's public input process and published in 1999 as part of the Clerc Center's Sharing Ideas series. Citation of the more recent paper will be made in most cases; however, readers may note that some premises are numbered differently in the two papers.

Go to Part III: Results from the Public Input Process on Transition

Copyright © 2002 Gallaudet University Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center
800 Florida Ave. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Key Clerc Center Contact Information
Contact Information Systems and Computer Support if you have any difficulty viewing this page.