Transition in the 1990s: A Reply to Knowlton and Clark

Abstract

Transition in the 1990s: A Reply to Knowlton and Clark The April issue of Exceptional Children (1987, Vol. 53, No. 6) addressed transition from school to adult life, which marks an important point in the history of special education. The issues raised by contributing authors signaled the shift in professional focus from accessibility concerns to the examination of outcomes associated with special education services. In little more than a decade, special educators have become advocates not only for the right of students with handicaps to educational services, but also for their right to lead productive and dignified lives as a result of attending our nation's public schools. The special issue of Exceptional Children concluded with a discussion of the future of transition efforts. Knowlton and Clark (1987) raised several important issues that practitioners will undoubtedly confront in the next decade and beyond. These issues include how the increase in national attention on academic excellence will affect programs serving secondary students with handicaps and the importance of preparing secondary special educators to deal effectively with the transition of these students. Knowlton and Clark pointed out that implementation of effective transition programs will require changing much more than recognition of the problem. We agree with Knowlton and Clark that system-wide change will be required, but we are concerned about two of their recommendations concerning the future of transition efforts. Specifically, we believe that ignoring an excellent body of literature because subjects were labeled is unwarranted. Moreover, refocusing the goals of transition programs to include independent living and social outcomes clashes with what we believe are important trends in special education. LABELING IN THE LITERATURE Knowlton and Clark suggested that severely handicapped persons have been overrepresented in the transition literature--and that the focus on these persons may alienate many potential consumers of transition services. Knowlton and Clark suggested that professionals may find that the existing literature is not relevant to their efforts to serve persons with or moderate handicaps. Nevertheless, pointing out the irony in this situation, the authors indicated that many of the severely handicapped subjects referred to in the literature could very well drift into a more moderately handicapped category with more careful assessment of their disability. We agree with Knowlton and Clark that the possible exclusion of some professionals and the clients they serve from the progress made in the field of transition would be unfortunate and unproductive. We do not believe, however, that changing the subject descriptors used by researchers will necessarily make the transition literature more palatable. Increasingly, special education is examining the outcomes of its efforts, including the provision of secondary special education and transitional services. We believe that the focus on outcomes should remain the basis for evaluating the relevance of special education and transitional services. Consumers must address the effectiveness of the procedures reported in research studies and examine the utility of the recommendations made by investigators. The results of transitional services research based on sound experimental designs are likely to be replicated at all levels. All professionals should be encouraged to judge research results on their technical merit rather than on the labels chosen by the investigators to describe their subjects. In this way, the large body of excellent work already existing on transition can be used for the benefit of all. It is our contention that, since its inception, transition has been a program targeted to all persons with handicaps who need services (Will, 1984). Knowlton and Clark's lament about the focus on persons with severe as opposed to mild handicaps seems out of place. …