Perceptions of adolescent girls with LD regarding self-determination and postsecondary transition planning.

Existing research has documented disparate outcomes between young women and men with disabilities in many transition domains, including employment, postsecondary education, and parenting. Similarly, students with learning disabilities (LD) have unique postsecondary transition needs. Promoting self-determination and active participation in transition is recommended in practice regardless of gender and disability type. Because both gender and disability status impact the postsecondary trajectories of young adults, helping young women with LD meet the demands of adulthood, including responding to opportunities for self-determination, is a salient issue. Using qualitative interview data and analysis, this study examined the perceptions of adolescent females with LD regarding self-determination during transition. Findings indicated that participants perceived they were self-determining individuals, yet several key component skills necessary for self-determination were missing. Connections to practice and future research are presented.

**********

Adolescent girls with learning disabilities (LD), particularly those who are from groups outside the dominant European American, English-speaking, middle and high socioeconomic income brackets, face unique challenges to postsecondary achievement and success. An analysis of the postsecondary trajectories of young adults, taking into consideration disability, gender, socioeconomic status (SES), and race/ethnicity, reveals the complexity of disparate outcomes. For young women with disabilities who are transitioning into adulthood, both economic and educational disadvantage are disproportionately high (Rousso & Wehmeyer, 2001). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2004), the rate of employment for men and women with disabilities ages 16 to 64 is 40.5% and 33.5%, respectively. Women with disabilities earn less than their male counterparts and are more likely to be living in poverty (Jans & Stoddard, 1999). This is particularly true for young women of color and those who experienced low SES as children (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005). Although results from the second National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS-2) have provided data that demonstrate closing gaps in employment and postsecondary enrollment rates between adolescent girls and boys with disabilities, differences in achievement and outcomes between European American youth with and without disabilities are diminishing at higher rates than for young adults with disabilities who are also people of color (Wagner et al., 2005).

Students with LD, 32% of whom are female, represent about 6% of the public school student population (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005) and slightly less than one half of all students who receive special education services (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). This population has the second highest dropout rate of all disability categories (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003). The postsecondary enrollment rate (57.5%) for high school graduates with LD is lower than rates for other disability categories (e.g., students with visual impairments, 70%; hearing impairments, 60%; speech impairments, 58.5%) (Horn & Berktold, 1999). Initial research provided evidence that employment and postsecondary education rates for young men with LD exceed those of young women with LD (Levine & Edgar, 1995; Levine & Nourse, 1998), and more current data regarding young women with disabilities continue to support those findings (Doren & Benz, 2001). Thus, addressing the transition needs of adolescent girls with LD requires teachers, parents, and adolescents girls with disabilities themselves to be aware of the unique challenges members of this population face as they enter adulthood.

Ameliorating postsecondary outcomes such as limited enrollment in postsecondary education and employment for youth with LD has been a central objective of research and practice for several decades. For example, ensuring that youth with LD access the general education curriculum and have comprehensive individualized education programs (IEPs) that address transition is important (Brinckerhoff, McGuire, & Shaw, 2002). A common finding throughout this research is the need for young adults with LD to be actively involved in transition planning and instruction (Price, 2002). Further, engaging students with LD in postsecondary transition activities is consistently included in recommended transition practices (Powers et al., 2005). Self-determination is central to student involvement because fruitful participation requires youth to set goals, self-assess progress, and realign goals accordingly (Field & Hoffman, 1994).

Self-determination theory involves the study of motivation, self-regulation, and personality (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In special education, the seminal work on human motivation by social psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan has been foundational to the conceptualization of self-determination (Wehmeyer, 1992). Ryan and Deci have endeavored to identify complex relationships among personality, personal resources (e.g., parental influence), and individualistic/independent cultural orientations intrinsic motivation and self-determination (Chirkov, Kim, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2003; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Special education researchers, meanwhile, have focused on practical applications of self-determination, ensuring that youth with disabilities have opportunities to act as causal agents in goal-setting and decision-making during postsecondary transitions (Field & Hoffman, 1994; Martin et al., 2006; Test et al., 2004; Wehmeyer, 1992, 1994). In Field and Hoffman's (1994) depiction of the self-determination construct for youth with disabilities, components of a youth's identity (self-knowledge and self-worth) converge and inform her ability to plan, thus enabling action. Actions lead to experience, which in turn informs identity, and the process continues in a cyclical manner. While this often-cited theoretical model of self-determination includes consideration of the environment in which a youth exists and acts, this part of the model is not depicted in a directional manner, and the relational aspects of the individual and her environment are not explicit, nor are subcomponents of environment included in detail.

Research on self-determination and individuals with disabilities has yielded foundational knowledge. First, self-determination is linked to successful postsecondary outcomes (Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). Second, attitudes and skills that contribute to self-determination competency can be taught to individuals with disabilities (Algozzine, Browder, Karvonen, Test, & Wood, 2001). Third, students with disabilities are motivated by opportunities for self-determination and favor using these skills in various aspects of their lives (Hapner & Imel, 2002). Fourth, teachers and parents both facilitate and inhibit youths' self-determination (Field & Hoffman, 2002; Thoma, Rogan, & Baker, 2001; Zhang, Katsiyannis, & Zhang, 2002).

Numerous self-determination curricula have also been developed, implemented, and studied using quasi-experimental and qualitative research methods. The results suggest positive relationships between the curricula and student acquisition of both self-determination skills and attitudes and transition goals (Algozine et al., 2001).

Yet, little research has examined what effect, if any, sociocultural interactions have on self-determination practices of young adults with disabilities. Further, little is known about the impact of individual characteristics such as gender, SES, race/ethnicity, and language on self-determination perceptions and behaviors. Careful consideration of these variables is needed for several reasons. First, adolescents with LD remain relatively uninvolved in creating and implementing postsecondary transition plans (Lehmann, Bassett, & Sands, 1999; Martin et al., in press; Trainor, 2005; Williams & O'Leary, 2001). Identifying contributing factors to this disengagement is complex.

One potential factor might be student access to instruction and opportunity for self-determination during postsecondary transition. Given that access to effective, high-quality special education services may vary for youth based on ethnicity and socioeconomic status (Harry & Klingner, 2006), it is important to examine the extent to which youth with LD who share demographic variables such as ethnicity and/or low SES are likely to encounter transition planning and instruction that is representative of preferred practices.

Second, multicultural special education studies have illustrated that a person's cultural development and identity (shaped in part by demographic as well as sociocultural variables) can influence her preferences, strengths, and needs regarding participation in the special education process, one part of which is transition planning (Garcia, Mendez-Perez, & Ortiz, 2000; Geenen, Powers, Lopez-Vasquez, & Bersani, 2003; Harry, Rueda, & Kalyanpur, 1999). Therefore, information about the extent to which the range of preferences, strengths, and needs regarding self-determination vary based on cultural group membership (e.g., English language learners) is also needed.

Third, education research has amassed evidence that sociocultural and education variables interact, potentially creating power structures that result in inequity in educational opportunity and achievement (Anyon, 1997, 2005; Kozol, 1991; Romo & Falbo, 1996; Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Valenzuela, 1999). Another question that remains to be studied is the potential effect diminished educational opportunities have on self-determination.

Among the demographic variables, gender has received the most attention in the existing research. While some analyses do not support gender as a predictor of self-determination competencies (Abery & Stancliffe, 2003), others have presented evidence to suggest that girls face unique obstacles to practicing self-determination and that related instruction may be particularly beneficial to this group. For example, Wehmeyer and Lawrence (1995) found that young women were more likely to experience significant increases in some subcomponents of self-determination, including locus of control, than young men. Additionally, young women expressed preferences for practicing self-determination during transition planning conferences.

Moreover, self-determination theory posits that the construct is complex, comprised of both psychological/cognitive subcomponents possessed by an individual and environmental opportunities for its practice (Mithaug, Agran, Martin, & Wehmeyer, 2003). Given that (a) self-determination is dependent upon the individual and the context, (b) girls with LD may present learning and behavior characteristics that differ from their male counterparts, and (c) their opportunities for achievement may vary, adolescent girls may indeed have unique preferences, strengths, and needs regarding the development and practice of self-determination during postsecondary transition.

Because self-determination is associated with positive postsecondary outcomes, understanding the extent to which adolescent girls with LD need support for its development is essential. Doing so has the potential to improve outcomes and close gender gaps between young women and young men with LD. Further analysis of the perspectives of young women with LD with regard to demographic variables (i.e., disability status, race/ethnicity) is also important. Finally, understanding how group membership and cultural identities inform values and beliefs is foundational to understanding sociocultural interactions (Garcia & Dominguez, 1997).

Understanding adolescents' perspectives regarding participation in the special education process has the potential to improve practice (Morningstar, Turnbull, & Turnbull, 2005). While the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; 2004) continues to emphasize the importance of including youth with disabilities in decisionmaking processes, little is known about how youth perceive such involvement. Adolescent females with LD who are also from marginalized groups have rarely been included in this line of inquiry. The purpose of this study was to help fill this void in the literature by examining adolescent girls' perceptions of self-determination as well as their postsecondary transition preferences, strengths, and needs.

METHOD

This qualitative study used a grounded theory approach to narrative research, analyzing comments made by young women with LD, interpreting plausible meanings of the content of the interviews, and constructing theoretical relationships relevant to the research questions (Charmaz, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1994).

Researcher as Instrument

Researcher reflexivity is critically important in qualitative research (Giangreco & Taylor, 2003). Rather than attempt to maintain an objective stance, my approach has been to consider and expose my biases (Charmaz, 2005). Thus, an interpretation of the results should include consideration of researcher positionality on all research activities. As an adult without LD, and as a European American from a middle-level socioeconomic background, I was an outsider during interviews with most participants; however, my identity as a former high school teacher may have afforded me insider perspectives. I enjoy spending time with adolescents and I have dedicated much of my professional and personal time talking to young people with disabilities. I took care to create a comfortable interview atmosphere by dressing casually and meeting participants at places and times of their choosing. Participants demonstrated their comfort level with me by requesting rides to and from interviews, introducing me to their parents, and inviting me into their homes.

During interviews, participants may withhold information or after comments to present a certain image (Seidman, 1998). In an effort to address this issue, I attempted to be culturally responsive (as described by Kalyanpur, Harry, & Day, 1999) by maintaining self-awareness of my biases about ethnicity, class, adolescents, and disability, simultaneously making efforts to learn the participants' preferences in communication as well as underlying values and beliefs about topics we discussed. I also recorded field notes after each encounter with participants and used these to follow up when I felt confused about a potential misunderstanding or was concerned that their participation was inauthentic (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). I established rapport by making several initial contacts with participants at school and by telephone. Lastly, I explained how confidentiality would be maintained, and I encouraged participants to respond to questions openly without concern for being "correct."

Participants

Seven racially/ethnically diverse adolescent girls participated in the study. All of them were at least 16 years old, received services as students with LD using state criteria (identified using traditional IQ-achievement discrepancy measures with a minimum discrepancy of 15 points), and were eligible for free or reduced-cost lunch programs. One participant, Lupe, was bilingual in English and Spanish. Table 1 provides a summary of participants' demographic characteristics and transition goals.

Participating School District

The study took place in a large, urban school district in the southwestern region of the United States. Principals from three of the district's eight high schools agreed for their schools to be included in the research project. While the district mission statement included a priority for developing students' abilities to set goals and seek support as needed (both related to self-determination), no specific self-determination curriculum was used in either special or general education classes at the time of the study. Postsecondary transition goals and objectives were part of district IEPs, which included a checklist of transition domains (e.g., employment, education, independent living) and space for listing expected postsecondary outcomes.

Populations of students who were considered to be economically disadvantaged ranged between 33-55%. Racial/ethnic representation at these campuses ranged as follows: African American students, 10-32%; European American students, 12-31%; Latino students, 30-76%. District population by race/ethnicity included 14% African American students, 46% European American students, and 35% Latino students.

Identification of Participants

One special educator at each campus agreed to help identify participants. These educators were instructed to provide all female students who met the study's criteria (age, disability, and socioeconomic status) with informational packets and consent/assent forms describing the research project. At the request of these three special educators, approximately 30 packets were delivered to each site for dissemination. District-level information regarding the total number of females with LD at the three participating high schools was not made available to me. Two potential participants who submitted consent/assent forms were excluded because they did not qualify for services as students with LD. One additional student agreed to participate but later changed her mind. Pseudonyms are used for all participating people and schools.

Data-Gathering Procedures

Focus group interviews of small groups of adolescents with similar characteristics are useful in promoting dynamic discussion on a topic (Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996). Focus groups and individual follow-up interviews were conducted. After a careful review of the self-determination literature, an interview protocol was developed for focus group interviews. This protocol, available upon request, contained 13 questions that addressed each of the subcomponent knowledge, skills, and attitudes included in Field and Hoffman's (1994) theoretical model of self-determination. The questions were open-ended and focused on participants' dreams and goals for adult life. For example, the first question asked participants to imagine themselves five years from the present day and to describe what they thought they would be doing and where they would be living. Participants' visions of their futures were probed for specificity. For example, if a participant said that she envisioned herself as an employed person, I would ask what type of employment she thought she would most likely have. Other questions included probes about students' decision-making processes (at home and at school), as well as strategies for setting goals and self-assessing.

Two focus group interviews, each with three participants, were conducted. (One participant, Penny, did not attend a focus group interview.) Because participant incentives are appropriate for focus group participation (Vaughn et al., 1996), each received a $25 gift certificate to a department store. Focus group interviews each lasted about 1.5-2 hours and were held in a private meeting room at local library branches. Individual follow-up interviews were between 45 minutes and one hour long. During these interviews participants were asked to clarify or extend statements from focus group interviews. Thus, they primarily served as member checking activities (Brantlinger, Jiminez, Klinger, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005).

Additionally, transition goals and objectives on participants' IEPs were analyzed to provide a point of comparison between statements about transition preferences and the plan set forth in formal school documents for the purpose of data triangulation (Brantlinger et al., 2005). First, I examined the transition goals and objectives of each participant. Transition needs in the district where the study was conducted were listed as an addendum to students' IEPs. Transition goals and objectives appeared to be generated from a master list, rather than individualized; the addenda were photocopied and the wording of the contents did not vary across individual or by campus. Therefore, I conducted frequency counts of the goals and objectives included in IEPs across participants and made note of the content specific to each participant. Next, I examined whether the age of the student (at development of the transition plan), and signatures of IEP team members (i.e., student, parent, special and general educators, and administrator) coincided with requirements in IDEA 1997.

Data Analysis Procedures

Audiotapes from both focus group and individual interviews were transcribed. I engaged in a recursive coding process to analyze interview data (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). I first categorized and coded data, using broad, conceptual topics. For example, participant quotes about gaining summer employment were categorized as "immediate employment goals." However, if the participant emphasized financial need in relation to finding a summer job, I created a second code of "financial need."

Following open coding of interview data, axial coding was used to theorize about relationships among the data. For example, participants frequently discussed family members who helped them make decisions or realize goals. "People" then became a parent category to "siblings," "kin," "peers," and other subcategories. Next, this category became part of a framework for understanding how participants perceived the support of significant people in their lives. A constant-comparison method of examining relationships (or absence thereof) between the emerging codes and current models of self-determination was used, connecting the raw data to self-determination concepts (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). Lastly, I identified emergent themes from data that were common among participants or relayed unique sentiments and experiences that stood out, yet were central to one or two participants. HyperResearch, qualitative software, was used to store, organize, and analyze data.

In addition to data triangulation and member checks, I made efforts to document researcher reflexivity and demonstrate the credibility of data (Brantlinger et al., 2005). I took extensive field notes that recounted data-collection activities, as well as my interpretations and impressions of participants' interactions, and my values and beliefs that informed analyses. These were shared informally with peer researchers from ethnically diverse backgrounds, while maintaining the confidentiality of participants. Further, I identified a key assumption upon which the study was established: Adolescents should have the opportunity to voice their perspectives about their participation in the special education process.

RESULTS

Several key themes emerged from the interview data that provide a perspective on how female students with LD regard self-determination during the transition planning process. First, participants expressed beliefs that they were self-determining young women, particularly with regard to their lives outside of school. Second, participants' comments belied this self-perception by revealing key self-determination components in need of development. Third, in concurrence with previous studies, individualized transition planning and instruction was not a central part of participants' high school experience.

Perceived Competency

The young women were able to recount ways in which they practiced self-determination. They discussed numerous choices and decisions they made, they provided examples in which they advocated for themselves based on self-knowledge, and they worked toward or reached goals they set for themselves. For example, Penny was experiencing difficulty at home and felt that she needed to get her own place. She had established contact with an adult service provider, whom she met while her mother was receiving vocational rehabilitation services. At 18, Penny acted on her own behalf and met with the counselor to establish eligibility for services following graduation. She was well versed in her responsibilities related to the age of majority. Penny also worked with her mental health counselor at another state agency to apply for subsidized housing. She was intent on living independently, and she said that she had learned through therapy that she needed to live without a roommate, at least initially.

Four of the seven participants were able to connect current experiences to their ideas about future employment. Some participants discussed impacting life experiences that informed choices and goal setting. Lupe's desire to become a nurse stemmed from her connections to her ailing grandmother, who lived with her family. Lupe said that she frequently helped her grandmother and that during weekly visits from a nurse she discussed her grandmother's health care procedures, as well as the demands of becoming a nurse. Further, both Penny and Bethany had experiences as peer mentors for students with disabilities. The mentorship programs helped them identify personal strengths that included working with people and patience. Penny envisioned herself working with people with mental health disabilities or children with autism, noting that admittance into a psychiatric hospital during a recent crisis had made her aware of related issues and possible employment as a nurse. Still, most connections participants made between life experiences, employment, and postsecondary goals seemed to be preliminary and serendipitous.

Participants provided few examples of specific preferences, strengths, and needs related to postsecondary goals. Self-knowledge was general (e.g., I'm patient) or vague (e.g., I don't like any school subjects). Participants in both focus groups and individual interviews initiated discussion about marriage, living with romantic partners, and parenting. In these discussions, participants expressed their belief that these choices and decisions were made independently. Five participants spoke of future goals to marry and have children. Bethany casually stated that she wanted to be "married, [with] two kids, golden retriever, [and live in] California." How soon each participant was willing to realize this goal varied. However, during a focus group interview, Tanya voiced a different perspective, "I want to have a baby when I am 18 so I do not have to be old when I have my first child." Both Missy, who self-identified as "gay," and Clarissa said they had no plans to marry or have children. In individual interviews when the specificity of family planning was probed, waiting, even for a short while, seemed important to some. For example, Flor said, "I want to get my own house and have me some kids.... I want to wait 'til I'm like 20, 21...." Lupe said that she wanted "two cars ... my husband and two kids ...," but not until she had a career and had spent time living on her own.

Both Tanya and Penny talked extensively during individual follow-up interviews about their current serious relationships with young men. Each had considered marriage during high school. Penny said, "Every time I get into a relationship with a guy, they want to have my kids or want to marry me." For Penny, at least one relationship ended badly, after which she reported filing a restraining order on her former boyfriend on grounds of physical abuse. Both Tanya and Penny prioritized their current relationships and discussed this influence on future choices about employment, living arrangements, and bearing children.

Transition plans did not contain specific discussion regarding parenting or marriage; however, independent living was a stated domain on the district's transition checklist. Five participants' IEPs stated "Independent," or "No support" in this domain. Transition plans for Missy and Tanya each contained statements regarding "residential services" or "options" through adult services providers.

Participants were asked to provide examples of how their goals had changed over time or had been influenced by their experiences and self-knowledge. With few exceptions, participants did not articulate examples of ways in which self-assessment or self-reflection informed postsecondary goals. However, they were able to identify several ways in which they successfully changed their school experiences. For example, Missy realized her success in changing her pattern of truancy by attending school regularly. She said, "I was like, what am I doin'? I am supposed to be at school. The next semester I was doin' all that I had to do ... made me pass to the 10th." Bethany recounted a success story that made her think she could overcome academic difficulties. "[My morn] was worried. The kind of worry where 'you're never gonna make it. You're gonna fail.' Guess what? I passed." She described herself as a "strong person" and said she would make it through college. Few other success stories and even fewer stories of failures were connected to participants' goals.

Missing Component Skills

The comments from this group of adolescent girls illustrated a lack of connection between their understanding of personal strengths and needs and their goals. For example, when Penny said she wanted to be a lawyer, she said she liked arguing with people. However, she was able to discuss her strengths as they related to nursing, another career aspiration. She said that she was patient, could take orders, and liked working with people. Like Penny, Bethany and others seemed to blur the distinction between preferences and strengths. Articulating needs or weaknesses seemed to be similarly difficult. Although each participant mentioned academic struggles, they identified careers that required college degrees. For example, Bethany discussed her desire to go to college, but she said that in high school she purposefully avoided difficult courses and requirements. Similarly, Flor stated that she wanted to be a model or a singer but that she was too shy to take chorus as an elective.

Some of the goals and decisions participants discussed were made without sufficient knowledge of all options or implications. For example, even though Flor did not speak much Spanish, she mentioned she would like to live in Mexico after she graduated because she "want[ed] to live somewhere where it is quiet and you can walk around...." In another example, Tanya discussed her desire to become a parent prior to graduation, revealing a limited understanding of the demands of parenthood. Although her father disapproved, she expected her parents to help her care for any baby she might have. "I would need help bathing my child. I know how to provide for my child, take care of my child, I guess. If I can't get a job, I'll just ask my morn and daddy to help."

Six of the young women had difficulty articulating any detail about the paths they expected or hoped their lives would follow as they entered adulthood, although several identified careers, usually high-profile and glamorous, that interested them. Flor discussed modeling or singing in a rock band; Penny mentioned becoming a lawyer, and Clarissa discussed owning a business or being a wedding planner. Most commonly, participants stated that they did not know what type of a career interested them. Tanya, a junior, seemed to best capture this sentiment when she said, "I don't know, I haven't thought about that so far." Bethany was unique in that she expressed a specific career goal, that of professional illustrator. Further, her IEP included transition goals that addressed art and referred to her career aspirations specifically. The transition documents of the other six participants contained no specific occupational goals; however, all contained employment objectives regarding access to job counseling and/or vocational programs.

Even when goals for employment were more clearly articulated, participants had little knowledge of job requirements or education prerequisites. For example, Flor said she did not know how to get involved in modeling. The idea of becoming a model had come to her while she was watching music videos and seeing fashions she liked. Others, including Lupe and Bethany, mentioned a desire to go to college. For Lupe, this goal seemed vague. While she considered becoming a nurse, she said that she had not had the opportunity to discuss this career or related educational paths with her teachers, and she had not examined any nursing programs to determine academic prerequisites or content. Bethany, on the other hand, identified a clear path to reach her career goal of being an animator. She took elective art courses and joined an extracurricular animation club. Still, she fretted about academic challenges she faced, stating, "My biggest goal is to pass my high school.... And if I don't go to college, I will have this big putdown on my family."

Details about how to apply for college, receive services for students with disabilities, or achieve academic success in postsecondary settings were difficult for participants to enumerate. Lupe and Penny both wanted to be nurses. While both had real-life interactions with nurses, neither knew much about educational paths to nursing. Lupe, preparing for her senior year at the time of the interview, said she thought she should apply to college when the school year started and that the applications would be available at her high school. When asked if she had discussed her plans with a guidance counselor, she said no. However, she had discussed the topic with her grandmother's in-home nurse. "I told her, 'How do you got to be a nurse?' She says she went to college, finish high school...." Penny and Lupe were both under the impression that they could obtain degrees in nursing from the local community college. Penny said she did not know the application procedure. She was not inclined to ask for help at school. "I can do it on my own. It is just a disadvantage if I ask for help." Bethany, the only participant whose parents had attended some college, had a better understanding of the application process. She said she would ask her teachers for letters of recommendations prior to the application process.

Document reviews revealed consistency between participants' comments and transition plans in that neither contained much in the way of specific plans to attend postsecondary educational settings. None of the documents contained postsecondary education goals regarding university or four-year college programs. Transition plans for four participants, Bethany, Clarissa, Lupe, and Tanya, each contained vague goal statements about community college settings, usually phrased as "community" or "junior college" under the category, "Expectations after Exiting Public School." Flor's transition plan contained no statement in this domain. Interestingly, transition plans for Missy and Penny referred to postsecondary programs for adults with significant disabilities, where they would gain "adult living skills." Based on a review of these participants' IEPs, it is unclear why this was included in their plans. One possible explanation is that, in light of the district's use of a template of transition goals and objectives, inappropriate content was inadvertently included on the transition addenda for these two girls.

In other cases, participants made decisions based on self-knowledge and values, but these actions had potentially negative consequences because the values of the student were not congruent with those of the school. For example, Flor was in danger of not completing high school because of truancy and suspensions. When teachers prompted her to attend summer school and make up credits, she declined, saying, "I didn't want to 'cause it wastes all my time. If it makes me pass ... but it wastes all my time." In another example, Tanya identified one of her strengths as her ability to be strong and defend her honor when she perceived she was being disrespected. She perceived verbal and physical altercations as means to defend her reputation although these actions warranted punishment at school. Tanya relayed an incident in which she felt publicly humiliated by a teacher. The teacher and administrators perceived her response to be threatening, leading to suspension. Tanya said that the issue of fighting was nonnegotiable. "... they told my mama. They say, 'Tanya needs to control her attitude, she needs to learn how to just listen and just walk away when somebody come up in her face.' And I don't do it." Her comment, made during a focus group interview, sparked laughter, and her peers concurred that walking away from a fight was a ludicrous idea. The prevailing attitude in the focus group, which included Clarissa, Missy, and Tanya, seemed to be that school was a tough place where students had to defend themselves, sometimes at the expense of receiving an education. Yet, each of these young women also stated that high school graduation was a central goal in their lives.

Limited Opportunities for Planning

Participants were generally unfamiliar with the formal transition planning process. For example, none was able to define the term transition plan, but some acknowledged that they had heard of it. Clarissa said, "I didn't have that in my [IEP meeting] yet ... they wadn't doin' all that.... Basically they focus on what I done did." Tanya added, "And when they say that ... something about going to college after school and it goes over my head." Lupe and Missy said they had never heard the term. Penny explained, "I can't tell you in my own words. I don't know what it is. I heard of it, but I heard IPE? IP?" Bethany represented an exception to the rule. She remembered her transition plan, some of the contents, and the fact that discussions began during her sophomore year. Despite the confusion or uncertainty most participants expressed about the transition plans, document reviews revealed that each had signed their IEPs.

Since participants may have understood the concept of transition but were unfamiliar with the term, interview questions probed the extent to which they were involved in planning and acting on postsecondary goals in specific transition domains. Responses reflected a consistent lack of discussion with school personnel regarding postsecondary plans. Penny and Bethany, who both described friendly relationships with their special education teachers, stated that they did not know if their teachers knew of their career aspirations. Penny said that one teacher might have known she wanted to be a nurse, but she did not remember if they had discussed the topic. Both Tanya and Bethany related words of encouragement their teachers had shared with them about more general transition issues, such as working toward high school graduation.

Participants believed transition planning and instruction should and did happen with parents and other family members. For example, Clarissa's mother, who had not attended college, located a summer camp program for girls whose parents had not been to college and obtained a funding source for her daughter's registration fee through her church group. The purpose of the camp, which was held at a local university, was to provide information about applying to and attending college. In a later interview, Clarissa stated that she would not be inclined to ask her teachers about applying to college. When asked to elaborate, she said, "My mom, she know how to do it so she'll teach me."

Participants were asked to discuss their experiences at IEP meetings. Although each participant's IEP included a transition plan, Bethany and Penny were the only students who remembered attending recent IEP meetings or having discussions about postsecondary transition. Document reviews revealed that IEPs for every participant stated an exemption for state examinations based on core knowledge and skills (required for a diploma in participants' home state) and that few plans connected participants to adult service providers. Generally, they perceived that the overall purpose of the IEP was to determine which courses to take the following academic year. Bethany said that the IEP meetings reassured her that her class choices would be honored. She added, "Because I know that's my future and what's affecting it." Bethany's willingness to participate, and her account of preparing for IEP participation at home with her parents, was unique. Tanya and Flor said they did not attend. Missy, who said she had never been to an IEP meeting, said, "They probably told my mom ... because I ain't really got nothin' to do with it. They just ask me what classes I want."

Throughout the interviews, participants voiced concern that IEP team decisions about coursework were not consistently reflected in subsequent schedules, and that their mothers were more effective than they were at getting their choices honored. Tanya asked, "Why ask me something that I want if you not going to put it down on my schedule?" Most said that when they did attend meetings, they contributed to the decision-making by way of requesting courses. Several of these adolescents said they requested placement in vocational education programs that allowed them gain academic credit for employment. With the exception of Tanya, participants did not gain access to this program, however. Missy discovered that the reason for her ineligibility was her lack of accumulated course credits, and she planned to gain sufficient credits to enroll in the program. Other participants remained baffled or embittered when they requested courses or accommodations and were turned down.

Participants also associated IEP meetings with discipline and said that they attended the meetings to see what teachers told their parents about their behavior. "Intimidating" was one word Flor used to describe IEP meetings, "If I'm bad they're talking about 'You need to clean up your attitude' and all this stuff." In the focus group meeting, Clarissa said, "Quiet! I just sit there and wait 'til they say something crazy. 'Til they make up a lie." She also gave an example of an IEP meeting in which she felt humiliated when a teacher discussed her math skill deficits. Tanya concurred, "... whenever I answer, they don't like what I have to say, so I just sit up in there and be quiet." Lupe had a more positive experience, which she attributed to good behavior, but she expressed anxiety about IEP discussions about her poor academic performance.

Participants' comments revealed a lack of vocational education, career development, and postsecondary educational opportunities. Only Tanya was involved in a vocational education program, through which she was placed in a sheltered workshop completing tasks such as folding laundry and data entry. She did not like either of these jobs, nor did she associate them with acquired skills. Clarissa was the only participant who had experienced competitive employment (as a salesperson at a national department store chain), arranged with the assistance of family and friends. She expressed interest in owning a small business, making implicit connections to the sales and people skills she had developed through her part-time job. Penny, Missy, Bethany, Flor, and Lupe were not part of vocational education programs, nor had they obtained paid employment, despite efforts to seek it independently to address financial need. Transition goals and objectives confirmed all seven participants' need for instruction and experience in this area.

Penny was the only one of the participants (five of whom were completing their junior year of high school) who had knowledge of and experience with eligibility-based adult service providers. Although linkages to adult services were stated on some IEPs, these references were vague. For example, Clarissa's transition plan listed "school personnel" as providers of information about public assistance in housing and food stamps. While goals connecting participants to the state's vocational rehabilitation office were contained on five of the seven documents, no signatures of representatives from the vocational rehabilitation department or any other adult service providers documented their participation.

DISCUSSION

Interview data from this study demonstrate that these adolescent girls with LD who were from low SES backgrounds perceived themselves as self-determining even though their practice of effective self-determination was inhibited by underdeveloped component attitudes, skills, and knowledge. Participants felt compelled to make their own choices and decisions, although they possessed limited information about the consequences of these choices, lacked faith that their choices had significant meaning to the adults involved in their education, and/or were unsure about the availability of the resources they needed to achieve their goals.

Their attempts to be self-determining, in light of these limitations, resulted in decisions that had potentially deleterious effects on their educational paths. Although none of these adolescent girls was a parent at the time of the study, five of the seven discussed their intentions to have children during or immediately following high school, despite advice from parents and other family members who wanted them to wait. Perhaps they should have taken this advice more seriously, given that teens who bear children face many financial and social challenges, and that youth with disabilities who become adolescent parents are more likely to experience negative postsecondary outcomes in relation to employment (Benz, Doren, & Yovanoff, 1998). Further, educational attainment is also negatively impacted by adolescent child bearing (Freeman, 2004). On the other hand, the acknowledgment that ultimately a young woman's choice to bear children is her own requires a more sophisticated understanding of the role of parental advice and authority on the development of self-determination. Several participants also discussed the priority they assigned to romantic relationships, including those they deemed abusive, as they made decisions about their futures, linking these findings to a broader issue in educational equity for girls. That is, according to Hanson and Smith (2001), preventing dating violence is a significant issue in promoting the educational attainment of young women. These findings support results from earlier studies illustrating the engendered nature of the emphasis on marriage and parenting on postsecondary goals (Doren & Benz, 2001; Trainor, 2005).

Other decisions and choices that negatively affected the educational trajectories of these adolescent girls ranged from decisions to engage in physical altercations at school, to knowingly breaking rules of conduct that carried stiff penalties for suspension, to intentionally missing classes. Although Missy and others said that they made concerted efforts to reduce truancy, like Flor, they chose not to engage in programs that allowed them to make up credits by attending school on Saturdays. These anecdotes seem to illustrate the effects of accumulated education experiences that acted as barriers (not unlike those faced by general education students in both Valenzuela's [1999] and Stanton-Salazar's [2001] studies of marginalized Mexican-origin youth who encountered low expectations and poor-quality educational opportunities) to envisioning goals and goal attainment, both important components of self-determination.

Some of the decisions or choices offered as examples of self-determination reflected inaction, yet they had similarly negative effects. Although most participants were nearing the end of high school, they declined to actively participate in IEP meetings and transition planning at school. Unfortunately, the interview data presented here corroborate studies that document passivity or nonparticipation of students in IEP meetings (Martin et al., 2006). These interview data go beyond documentation of nonparticipation and illustrate students' perspectives regarding their reluctance to become involved. All but two of the participants said they saw no point in participating because they had been scolded during IEP meetings, their concerns were disregarded, or the topics discussed were more suited for parental decision-making. According to Chirkov and Ryan (2004), the reactions of these participants should be considered typical if they were indeed scolded; adolescents are less likely to exercise self-determination when adults are controlling or directive. Participants in this study also perceived that parent efforts to advocate yielded more results than did their own attempts at self-advocacy, fueling their disengagement. Perhaps school personnel had additional information that precluded certain course enrollments or scheduling preferences; nevertheless, reasons for unfulfilled requests were lost on participants and negatively impacted rapport and trust with school personnel.

Participants were not actively pursuing long-term goals for postsecondary careers. Although several identified careers of interest, they did not connect knowledge of self to education and career-related decision-making. This lack of knowledge and experience contributed to their passivity when educational decisions were made, as well as to their reluctance to engage with academic and extracurricular resources available to them. While it is common that adolescents present high career aspirations that correspond to society's definition of success, it is also typical that these career goals change and become more realistic as young adults gain self-knowledge (Jacobs, Karen, & McClelland, 1991). Participants in this study had not made those connections, even though they were nearing the end of public school education. Only one participant was connected to adult service providers. While such linkages are an important part of effective transition, research reflects a lack of connections to adult service providers for young women in transition (Olson, Cioffi, & Yovanoff, 2000). Interview data from this study help explain why some youth make the decision not to seek help or involvement with supportive agencies and individuals.

Participants' difficulty articulating career goals that matched individual preferences, strengths, and needs, was likely due in part to their lack of access to vocational programs and experiences. The career aspirations of these female adolescents differed those of males in an earlier study (Trainor, 2005) in that high school boys with LD were more specific, less grandiose, and seemed to include increased application of self-knowledge in choice and decision-making activities. Comparisons between these two studies and similar findings in previous work (Rojewski & Hill, 1998; Rojewski & Yang, 1997) indicate that gender may be a significant factor in career development. Furthermore, access to these programs is an important predictor of postsecondary achievement for both young women and young men with disabilities (Benz, Doren, & Yovanoff, 1998), but particularly so for young women who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds as these participants did.

The onus of increasing the capacity of adolescents with disabilities through access to effective transition services and opportunities to effectively practice self-determination is not on the shoulders of the youth themselves, however. Clearly, the spirit of IDEA 2004, empirical support of the extant literature, and the voices of adults with disabilities and their family members are indicative of the priority self-determination development should receive in the postsecondary transition process. Past research has provided evidence that transitioning to adulthood requires ongoing attention to self-determination and opportunities for career development, vocational education, and work experiences (Lindstrom & Benz, 2002). The gradual nature of transition planning and instruction, learning from these experiences, and realigning long-term goals, were missing, yet research shows that this is precisely what young women with LD need in order to reach career goals (Lindstrom & Benz, 2002).

Several limitations of these data must be considered. First, the perceptions of the seven adolescents cannot be generalized to the larger population of girls with LD. Rather, they provide an important snapshot of the experiences of some adolescent girls with LD from low socioeconomic backgrounds. District policy regarding the inclusion of students receiving special education services in research studies precluded access to important information about the pool of participants. For example, while we do know that each participant met state criteria for receiving services as LD, and that none had dual diagnoses, interview data illustrate the complexity of disability labeling. Tanya was placed in a sheltered workshop, atypical for a student with LD; Penny mentioned having received mental health interventions, indicating a confluence of emotional issues with learning difficulties; and several of the girls described serious behavior problems.

Second, special education case managers and teachers seemed unwilling to facilitate my observations of IEP meetings for reasons that remain unclear. Participants' annual meetings were rescheduled on numerous occasions, and this information was not shared with me. Observing students' participation during IEP meetings would have made the data set more robust.

Third, results from the study are limited to the perspectives of the adolescents. Thus, these adolescents may have perceived themselves to be self-determining whereas the important adults in their lives might have expressed differing opinions. Yet few studies examine the perceptions of students with disabilities, making this perspective worthy of attention.

Implications for Practice and Research

Participants in this study sorely needed instruction and guided practice in self-determination. Numerous self-determination curricula are available for teacher use. Because participants' comments indicated a high degree of variation (among and within group members) of competence in component self-determination skills, a consistent and thorough approach to self-determination instruction, as well as one that can be individualized, seems appropriate. Practitioners who attempt to address the unique preferences of young women with LD must critically examine available programs to determine which programs would best address the needs of their students and which have been empirically validated (Malian & Nevin, 2002).

Transition planning and instruction, as well as access to vocational educational programming and experiences, consistently failed to meet the needs of these adolescent. Girls seem particularly vulnerable to receiving diminished opportunities for development in this area (Doren & Benz, 2001). Because career aspirations are an important early step toward career development and attainment, teachers and parents must increase awareness of this issue and actively address the needs of adolescent girls in an effort to create parity with their male counterparts.

Teachers need to understand the extent to which students feel negatively about IEP participation, as well as their reasons for disengagement. Teachers stand to gain insight from these data, possibly helping them shed deficit-based perceptions. Also, based on participants' comments, helping practitioners become better listeners might be appropriate in some cases. Teachers and administrators could likely reach more students and encourage more participation if they were able to meet student requests and/or explain why they cannot be met. Engaging students in meaningful discussions about their choices and decisions, as well as the implications, has the potential to promote self-determination as students gain the information necessary to set and adjust goals as necessary.

Additionally, following IDEA 2004, teachers should use transition assessment tools so that they are familiar with students' individualized preferences, strengths, and needs. This would extend all parties' awareness of postsecondary transition needs, as well as focus on strength-based approaches to instruction. Linkages to adult service agencies provided a strong base for transition planning for one of the participants in this study, underscoring the IDEA 2004 mandate to do so. Participants' comments also revealed the importance they placed on the involvement of family and community members in the transition process. Expanding IEP team membership and creating transition processes that engage family members and other interested adults (e.g., community and church leaders) in planning efforts has the potential to improve practice.

Further research validating the appropriateness of self-determination curricula for youth from diverse backgrounds is necessary. Wehmeyer and Lawrence (1995) found variation in response to self-determination instruction between girls and boys. The girls in this study had low socioeconomic status. Only one of the participants' parents had attended college. This prompts questions of the impact of having limited knowledge about the requirements of college on postsecondary education goals during transition. That is, if students with disabilities do not have knowledge about available resources (e.g., financial and academic support in postsecondary institutions) can they make choices in a self-determining way?

The lack of rapport between school personnel and the participants was disconcerting and worthy of further examination. Designing an inquiry that would include a large number of participants is one way to determine whether some of the obstacles to self-determination are generally problematic for girls with LD. Participants did not readily identify teachers as adults with whom they could share plans for adulthood, so many opportunities for connecting to transition resources were lost. Past studies of secondary students' school achievement and participation, particularly students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, show that these adolescents do not always discuss important life decisions with teachers, particularly if they perceive that teachers do not care about them (Kortering & Braziel, 1998; Stanton-Salazar, 2001). Understanding more about how teachers and students perceive caring relationships is important. Specifically, learning more about the ways in which the cultural identities of both teachers and students shape interactions, as well as strategies for establishing caring relationships that do not come at the expense of academic rigor, could potentially improve practice.

Parents and teachers sometimes differ in their perceptions of adolescents' level of self-determination, as well as opportunities for practice (Carter, Lane, Pierson, & Glaeser, in press). Conducting in-depth interviews with parents and teachers about the opportunities they provide for self-determination and their perceptions regarding self-determination would be informative. More information from teachers about the negotiation between student goals and preferences and the requirements and demands of school policies and procedures (i.e., contextual variables of self-determination) is also needed (Abery & Stancliffe, 2003). Further, returning to the work of social psychologists (Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004) will provide guidance for studying the sociocultural variables of self-determination in special education. Where are opportunities for self-determination and transition planning occurring at school? How do environments such as general and special education settings present opportunities for self-determination instruction and practice? Participants were reluctant to actively participate in IEP meetings because they felt intimidated. Can the transition process be changed to reduce vulnerability and increase active participation?

Understanding why becoming a parent during the late teen, early adult years was appealing to these young women is also important. Girls with LD are more likely to become single parents prior to adulthood than are male youth with LD or female youth without disabilities (Levine & Nourse, 1998). Examining whether parents adopt directive or autonomy-supportive roles (Chirkov & Ryan, 2004) in communicating advice about teen pregnancy would inform the extent to which young women practice self-determination in these decisions. The sexual behavior of teens is complex and likely influenced by a number of factors, including socioeconomic status and attitudes and knowledge about sexual behavior itself (Kalmuss, Davidson, Cohall, Laraque, & Cassell, 2003). While all participants in this study shared a common socioeconomic background, they differed in race/ethnicity. At least one participant in each of the racial/ethnic groups represented discussed these goals in detail (Penny, a European American; Tanya, an African American; and Flor, a Latina adolescent). Some evidence connects early childbearing and the presence of cognitive disabilities (Kalmuss et al., 2003). Research is needed to determine how adults can best prepare youth to make sound decisions regarding parenting.

In Double Jeopardy: Addressing Gender Equity in Special Education (2001), Rousso and Wehmeyer outline issues pertinent to improved practice for girls with disabilities. Results from this study provide more evidence that issues identified by these authors, such as accessing the general education curriculum and postsecondary transition, need attention from researchers and practitioners. Focusing the development of self-determination during postsecondary transition on characteristics (e.g., disability status, gender, SES, and culturally and linguistic diversity) impacting students' preferences, strengths, and needs has the potential to improve practice and contribute to the refinement of self-determination theory.

Understanding how individual characteristics based on group membership may shape the preferences, strengths, and needs of youth transitioning into adulthood is important. This knowledge can help us avoid making assumptions based on universalistic ideas about perceptions and practices in transition domains such as self-determination. Nevertheless, this type of information is but a springboard to understanding larger issues of diversity within special education; within-group diversity is also in need of our attention. Moreover, we must study the diversity of teachers' beliefs about self-determination and their biases relative to gender, class, disability status, and race/ethnicity. This preliminary evidence will augment our ability to study the interactions between key players in transition planning and instructional processes, paying keen attention to the sociocultural aspects of self-determination.

REFERENCES

Abery, B. H., & Stancliffe, R. J. (2003). An ecological theory of self-determination: Theoretical foundations. In M. L. Wehmeyer, B. H. Abery, D. E. Mithaug & R. J. Stancliffe (Eds.), Theory in self-determination: Foundations for educational practice (pp. 25-42). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Algozzine, B., Browder, D., Karvonen, M., Test, D. W., & Wood, W. M. (2001). Effects of interventions to promote self-determination for individuals with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 71, 219-277.

Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York: Routledge.

Benz, M. R., Doren, B., & Yovanoff, P. (1998). Crossing the great divide: Predicting productive engagement for young women with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21, 3-16.

Brantlinger, E., Jiminez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195-207.

Brinckerhoff, L. C., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2002). Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities. Austin: TX: Pro-Ed.

Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Pierson, J., & Glaeser, B. (in press). Self-determination skills and opportunities of transition-age youth with emotional disturbance and learning disabilities. Exceptional Children.

Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., Ryan, R. M., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internationalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97-110.

Chirkov, V. I., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Parent and teacher autonomy-support in Russian and U.S. adolescents: Common effects on well-being and academic motivation. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 32, 618-635.

Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Doren, B., & Benz, M. R. (2001). Gender equity issues in the vocational and transition services and employment outcomes experienced by young women with disabilities. In H. Rousso & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds.), Double jeopardy: Addressing gender equity in special education (pp. 289-308). Albany: State University of New York.

Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (1994). Development of a model for self-determination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 17,159-169.

Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (2002). Lessons learned from implementing the steps to self-determination curriculum. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 90-98.

Freeman, C. E. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls and women: 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Garcia, S. B., Mendez Perez, A., & Ortiz, A. A. (2000). Interpreting Mexican-American mothers' beliefs about language disabilities from a sociocultural perspective. Remedial & Special Education, 21, 90-120.

Garcia, S. B., & Dominquez, L. (1997). Cultural contexts that influence learning and academic performance. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 6(3), 621-655.

Geenen, S., Powers, L. E., Lopez-Vasquez, A., & Bersani, H. (2003). Understanding and promoting the transition of minority adolescents. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 26, 27-46.

Grolnick, W. M., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children's perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 508-517.

Hanson, K., & Smith, S. J. (2001). Gender equity in education: Change and challenge. In H. Rousso & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds.), Double jeopardy: Addressing gender equity in special education (pp. 59-94). Albany: State University of New York.

Hapner, A., & Imel, B. (2002). The students' voices: "Teachers started to listen and show respect." Remedial and Special Education, 23, 122-126.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education? New York: Teachers College Press.

Harry, B., Rueda, R., & Kalyanpur, M. (1999). Cultural reciprocity in sociocultural perspective: Adapting the normalization principle for family collaboration. Exceptional Children, 66, 123-136.

Horn, L., & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. [section] 614 et seq.

Jacobs, J. A., Karen, D., & McClelland, K. (1991). The dynamics of young men's career aspirations. Sociological Forum, 6, 609-639.

Jans, L., & Stoddard, S. (1999). Chartbook on women and disability in the United States. Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

Kalmuss, D., Davidson, A., Cohall, A., Laraque, D., & Cassell, C. (2003). Preventing sexual risk behaviors and pregnancy among teenagers: Linking research and programs. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35(2), 1-14.

Kalyanpur, M., Harry, B., & Day, M. (1999). Building cultural reciprocity with families. Baltimore: P. H. Brookes Pub.

Kortering, L. J., & Braziel, P. M. (1998). School dropout among youth with and without learning disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21, 61-74.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Crown.

Lehmann, J. P., Bassett, D. S., & Sands, D. J. (1999). Students' participation in transition-related actions: A qualitative study. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 160-169.

Levine, P., & Edgar, E. (1995). An analysis by gender of long-term postschool outcomes for youth with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 282-300.

Levine, P., & Nourse, S. (1998). What follow-up studies say about postschool life for young men and women with learning disabilities: A critical look at the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 212-233.

Lindstrom, L. E., & Benz, M. R. (2002). Phases of career development: Case studies of young women with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 67-83.

Malian, I., &. Nevin, I. (2002). A review of self-determination literature: Implications for practitioners. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 68-74.

Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. B., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., Christensen, W. R., & Woods, L. L. (2006). Direct observations of teacher-directed secondary IEP meetings: Establishing the need for student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children, 72, 187-200.

Mithaug, D., Agran, M., Martin, J. E., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Self-determined learning theory: Construction, verification, and evaluation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Morningstar, M., Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (1995). What do students with disabilities tell us about the importance of family involvement in the transition from school to adult life? Exceptional Children, 62, 249-260.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Children with selected disabilities in public schools (No. 2005-094). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.

Olson, D., Cioffi, A., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Gender differences in supported employment. Mental Retardation, 38, 89-96.

Powers, K. M., Gil-Kashiwabara, E., Geenen, S. J., Powers, L. E., Lalandran, J., & Palmer, C. (2005). Mandates and effective transition planning practices reflected in IEPs. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 28, 47-59.

Price, L. (2002).The connections among psychosocial issues, adult development, and self-determination. In L. C. Brinckerhoff, J. M. McGuire, & S. F. Shaw (Eds.), Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities (pp. 131-155). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Reeve, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Self-determination theory: A dialectical framework for understanding socio-cultural influences on student motivation. In S. Van Etten & M. Pressley (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 31-60). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press.

Rojewski, J. W., & Hill, R. A. (1998). Influence of gender and academic risk behavior on career decision making and occupational choice in early adolescence. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3, 265-287.

Rojewski, J. W., & Yang, B. (1997). Longitudinal analysis of select influences on adolescents' occupational aspirations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 375-410.

Romo, H., & Falbo, T. (1996). Latino high school graduation: Defying the odds (1st ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Rousso, H., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (Eds.). (2001). Double jeopardy: Addressing gender equity in special education. Albany: State University of New York.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Test, D. W., Mason, C., Hughes, C., Konrad, M., Neale, M., & Wood, W. M. (2004). Student involvement in individualized education program meetings. Exceptional Children, 70, 391-412.

Thoma, C. A., Rogan, P., & Baker, S. R. (2001). Student transition planning: Unheard voices. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 16-29.

Trainor, A. A. (2005). Self-determination perceptions and behaviors of diverse students with LD during the transition planning process. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 233-249.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Disability characteristics: 2004 American community survey. Retrieved September 19, 2005, from http:// factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&qr_name=ACS _2004_EST_G00_S1801&-geo_id=01000US&ds_name=ACS_2004 _EST_G00_&-redoLog=true&-format=&-CONTEXT=st

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Twenty-sixth annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Special education: Federal actions can assist states in improving postsecondary outcomes for youth. Washington, DC: Author.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. (2005). Changes over time in the early postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1992). Self-determination and the education of students with mental retardation. Education & Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 302-314.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1994). Perceptions of self-determination and psychological empowerment of adolescents with mental retardation. Education & Training in Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 29, 9-21.

Wehmeyer, M., & Lawrence, M. (1995). Whose future is it anyway? Promoting student involvement in transition planning. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 18, 69-83.

Wehmeyer, M., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245-255.

Williams, J. M., & O'Leary, E. (2001). What we've learned and where we go from here. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24, 51-69.

Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., & Zhang, J. (2002). Teacher and parent practice on fostering self-determination of high school students with mild disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 157-169.

Please direct correspondence to: Audrey Trainor, Rm. 404, University Club Annex, 432 N. Murray Street, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706-1496; [e-mail]

AUDREY A. TRAINOR, Ph.D., is assistant professor, Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education, the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Table 1

Participant Snapshots

                                              Employment/
Name        Age   Grade   Ethnicity           Education Goals

Bethany     16    11      European American   College, illustrator,
                                                animator

Clarissa    16    11      African American    College,
                                                entrepreneur

Flor        17    10      Latina              Model, singer

Lupe        16    11      Latina              Nurse

Penny       18    11      European American   Lawyer, nurse

Missy       16    11      African American    Undecided

Tanya       18    11      African American    Undecided

               Independent
Name           Living Goals

Bethany     Marry and have children

Clarissa    Live by self, with friends

Flor        Live with mother or
              boyfriend

Lupe        Live by self or with parents

Penny       Live by self, apartment

Missy       Live with mother, friends

Tanya       Live with boyfriend, have
              children