Think College! : Postsecondary Education Options for Students with Intellectual Disabilities
Issue of Definition
When discussing postsecondary education (PSE) options for students with intellectual disabilities (ID), precise and universally understood definitions are essential to ensure effective communication and policy implementation.
Early attempts to describe these students using terms like "severe," "cognitive," and "significant" often led to confusion due to the lack of clear, standardized criteria.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (PL 93-112) provides a definition of significant disabilities:
Section 7 (21) defines an "individual with a significant disability" as someone with a severe physical or mental impairment that substantially limits functional capacities, necessitates multiple vocational rehabilitation services, and results from various conditions.
This definition's broad scope includes students with specific learning disabilities, who typically access college through standard procedures, distinguishing them from students with ID who require alternative pathways and specialized support.
The terminology around intellectual disability has evolved, with "mental retardation" being replaced by "intellectual disability" to reduce stigma and better reflect current understanding.
The American Association on Mental Retardation has transitioned to the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) to align with this shift in terminology.
According to AAIDD (2009), intellectual disability is characterized by significant limitations in both intellectual functioning (reasoning, learning, problem-solving) and adaptive behavior (conceptual, social, and practical skills), with onset before the age of 18.
This contemporary term encompasses the same population previously diagnosed with mental retardation, ensuring continuity in services and supports.
Federal entities like the Office of Special Education Programs (2004) and the National Institute on Disability Rehabilitation Research (2008) use the term "intellectual disability" in federal grant priorities, promoting consistency across research and practice.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008 (PL 110-315) significantly expands PSE opportunities for students with ID.
It enables students with ID participating in higher education programs to be eligible for Pell grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity grants, and the Federal Work-Study Program, enhancing affordability and access.
The act authorizes the development and expansion of inclusive model programs and the establishment of a coordinating center to disseminate best practices and support program development.
HEOA of 2008 defines a "student with an intellectual disability" as an individual with:
Significant limitations in intellectual and cognitive functioning, as well as adaptive behavior, impacting their ability to learn and function independently.
Eligibility for free appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, highlighting the importance of early intervention and support.
This definition is open to interpretation and subject to ongoing refinement through negotiated rulemaking, ensuring it remains relevant and responsive to the needs of students with ID.
The definition of developmental disability (DD) includes individuals with ID, potentially causing confusion in policy and practice.
A functional definition of students with ID includes:
Eligibility for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 (PL 108-446) until age 21 (26 in Michigan), providing extended support during the transition to adulthood.
Likely participation in the state's alternative assessment in high school, reflecting the need for accommodations and modifications in evaluation methods.
Exit from secondary education with an alternative diploma (IEP diploma or certificate of attendance), indicating completion of a modified curriculum tailored to their individual needs.
Requirement of significant planning and collaboration to access the PSE system, emphasizing the importance of coordinated efforts between students, families, educators, and service providers.
PSE encompasses a wide array of learning options following high school, including:
Credit and noncredit courses in community colleges and 4-year institutions, offering diverse academic and vocational pathways.
Vocational-technical colleges, providing specialized training for specific occupations.
Adult education programs, addressing basic skills and lifelong learning needs.
Community classes (e.g., YMCA), adult basic education programs, personal learning clinics, and personal development classes, fostering personal growth and community engagement.
Dual enrollment allows students to be simultaneously enrolled in high school and a PSE institution, often receiving transition services to facilitate their post-secondary success.
Traditional dual-enrollment programs have demonstrated positive outcomes, such as increased high school graduation and college enrollment rates.
However, there is no proven causal link between dual-enrollment and improved outcomes specifically for students with ID, necessitating further research in this area.
Growing Need Emerges
The population of students with ID receiving special education services is steadily increasing, underscoring the need for enhanced PSE opportunities.
In 2006, approximately 69,532 students with the label of "mental retardation" between 18 and 21 years old received special education services under Part B of IDEA (U.S. Department of Education, 2007a).
Of these, 17,005 graduated with a diploma, while 16,453 exited with a certificate, highlighting the varying levels of academic attainment.
Since the 1970s, secondary students with ID have participated in functional skills programs, focusing on practical life skills.
In the mid-1980s, these programs expanded to include inclusive academic and social activities, promoting integration and peer interaction.
Despite these changes, many students with ID exit school with alternative diplomas and encounter waiting lists for adult services, indicating systemic challenges in providing seamless transitions.
Historically, outcomes for students with ID have been suboptimal, emphasizing the urgency for improved PSE options.
A low percentage of students with ID secure employment upon exiting school (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005), limiting their economic independence.
Many receive inadequate vocational services or independent living options (Noyes & Sax, 2004), hindering their ability to live fulfilling and self-determined lives.
Those who do find work often do not experience wage increases (Noyes & Sax, 2004), perpetuating financial instability.
Students with ID are the least likely to attend postsecondary school compared to their neurotypical peers and those with other disabilities.
A national survey revealed that only 22% of people with developmental disabilities are in integrated employment, with a significant 57% remaining in facility-based settings (Winsor & Butterworth, 2007).
As of June 2006, nearly 85,000 individuals with ID/DD were on a waiting list for residential services, underscoring the critical shortage of community-based housing (Bruininks et al., 2007).
Dissatisfaction with high school services, coupled with the principles of inclusive K-12 education, has led to heightened expectations for students with ID and increased demand for PSE opportunities.
Parents, researchers, and practitioners are questioning the age appropriateness of serving students with ID alongside younger peers in traditional high school settings.
Parents are increasingly expecting their children with ID to pursue education beyond high school (Grigal & Neubert, 2004), driven by aspirations for greater independence and quality of life.
In a study, a significant 57% of parents of students with low-incidence disabilities expressed a desire for their children to achieve a two- or four-year college outcome.
Students themselves are increasingly expressing the desire to attend college, advocating for their right to access higher education.
Existing reports underscore the necessity for tailored education and transition services for students with ID aged 18-21 (National Council on Disability, 2000; Schmidt, 2005; Smith & Puccini, 1995).
The President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (2004) has recommended support for transitional programs at two-year colleges or four-year universities, as well as inclusive, community-based vocational training.
Growing numbers of students with ID are actively seeking access to PSE (Getzel & Wehman, 2005; Hart, Grigal, Sax, Martinez, & Will, 2006), reflecting a fundamental shift in expectations and opportunities.
They are participating in diverse PSE options, gaining firsthand experiences in college and adult learning environments.
Self-advocates, parents, and educators are collectively working to create increased access to PSE options for students with ID.
This increasing trend is fueled by compelling research demonstrating that PSE leads to improved employment opportunities and higher wages for individuals with ID (Migliore, Butterworth, & Hart, 2009).
In 2006, there were 280,470 students with intellectual disabilities between the ages of 12 and 17 being served, making them likely candidates to seek access to PSE in the coming years.
Institutes of higher education and school systems are proactively creating opportunities to accommodate these students' needs and aspirations.
This has resulted in a growing trend to develop dual enrollment and adult PSE options tailored to students with ID.
Impetus for Change
The momentum to create access to PSE for students with ID is propelled by a confluence of factors, reflecting both individual and systemic influences.
One significant driver is the extended duration that students with ID spend in high school (until 21, or 26 in Michigan), which can lead to age-related frustrations and a desire for more age-appropriate learning environments.
Early initiatives in postsecondary settings often emerged from grassroots efforts by family members or teachers who sought alternatives to traditional high school programs (Neubert, Moon, & Grigal, 2002).
The inclusion movement has also been a pivotal impetus for change, as students with ID who have been educated alongside their peers in K-12 settings naturally desire to continue their education with them in college and other PSE settings.
Parents, too, are strong advocates for their children with ID to attend college, driven by hopes for enhanced independence, social integration, and career opportunities (Grigal & Neubert, 2004).
School systems are increasingly being called upon to provide transition services in college and community settings to facilitate successful post-secondary outcomes for students with ID.
Motivating factors for school districts to proactively develop new transition and PSE options include:
Federal mandates that require "results-oriented" transition planning, emphasizing the importance of setting and achieving measurable post-secondary goals.
New accountability measures for transition and postsecondary outcomes, incentivizing schools to improve their services and outcomes for students with ID.
Transition-related litigation, which has raised awareness of the legal rights of students with ID to receive appropriate transition services and supports.
The imperative to prepare youth with ID for the demands of the 21st-century workforce, which requires a broader set of skills and knowledge than traditional secondary education programs often provide.
Federal Mandates & Transition
Federal mandates provide critical support for goal-oriented transition planning and continued PSE for students with disabilities, ensuring equal access and opportunities.
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (PL 107-110) holds schools accountable for educating all students, including those with disabilities, and emphasizes the importance of high expectations and academic achievement.
IDEA 2004 implies that children with disabilities are educated for employment, independent living, and life-long learning, setting a clear expectation for successful post-secondary outcomes.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (PL 101-336) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (PL 93-112) mandate equal access to continued learning and PSE for individuals with disabilities, prohibiting discrimination and ensuring reasonable accommodations.
The Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (PL 105-394) provides federal resources to states for assistive technology, enabling students with ID to access and participate in PSE programs more effectively.
Transition & Postschool Outcome Accountability
The U.S. Department of Education, in conjunction with IDEA 2004, requires states to develop performance plans based on 20 indicators, ensuring accountability for improving outcomes for students with disabilities.
Indicator 13 specifically requires data on the percentage of youth aged 16 and above with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that includes measurable post-secondary goals and transition services aligned with those goals.
Indicator 14 requires data on the percentage of youth who have been through IEPs and are no longer in secondary school and have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within 1 year of leaving high school, providing a direct measure of post-secondary success.
The establishment of dual-enrollment programs and other PSE options may be seen as a direct response to these new accountability requirements, as schools seek to improve their transition outcomes for students with ID.
Transition-Related Litigation
An increase in transition-related litigation reflects growing concerns among parents regarding the adequacy of transition planning and services for their children with ID.
Key transition issues that have been brought before the courts include:
Efforts to invite agencies that may provide or pay for transition services, ensuring that relevant stakeholders are involved in the planning process.
Effectiveness in soliciting students' preferences and interests, placing the student at the center of the transition planning process.
Efforts to individualize transition services, tailoring them to each student's unique needs and goals.
Obligation to provide appropriate transition supports and services, ensuring that students receive the necessary assistance to achieve their post-secondary goals.
Appropriateness of the transition plan itself, ensuring that it is comprehensive, well-documented, and aligned with the student's needs and aspirations.
Preparation for the 21st-Century Workforce
Schools are increasingly developing PSE options as a means of preparing young adults with ID for meaningful and sustainable employment in the competitive workforce.
Current secondary practices have often been found to be insufficient in adequately preparing students for the demands of the modern workplace (Cassner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006; National Center on Education and the Economy, 2006).
Employers are seeking workers with strong applied work skills such as teamwork, critical thinking, and effective communication, which are often not emphasized in traditional secondary education programs.
They also value young people who can work collaboratively with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds, solve problems creatively, and demonstrate punctuality and dependability.
By effectively bridging the gap between high school and college through collaborative K-16 initiatives, partnerships can pave the way for successful transition pathways to employment (Grigal, Neubert, & Moon, 2005; Hart, Zafft, & Zimbrich, 2001; Kirst & Venezia, 2004; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2006).
Access to Postsecondary Education Has Changed
The landscape of providing access to PSE for students with ID has undergone a significant evolution over the past 30 years, marked by increased opportunities, evolving philosophies, and growing recognition of the potential of individuals with ID to succeed in higher education.
Programs designed to support students with ID in postsecondary settings have been emerging since the 1970s (Baxter, 1972; Bilovsky & Matson, 1974; Caparosa, 1985; Corcoran, 1979; Dahms, Ackler, & Aandahl, 1977; Daily, 1982; Doyle, 1997; Duran, 1986; Frank & Uditsky, 1988; Goldstein, 1993; Hall, Kleinert, & Kearns, 2000; Jones, & Moe, 1980; McAfee, & Sheeler, 1987).
The earliest programs in the 1970s were largely developed in response to broader societal movements such as normalization and deinstitutionalization, which sought to integrate individuals with disabilities into mainstream society and reduce reliance on segregated settings.
These programs primarily focused on serving adults with ID in segregated settings, providing them with basic skills and vocational training.
In the 1980s, the focus shifted toward transition and employment, with an emphasis on preparing students with ID for the workforce.
However, there was limited documentation and description of these programs available in the literature, making it difficult to replicate or evaluate their effectiveness.
The 1990s marked a turning point, with the literature beginning to focus more specifically on students with ID rather than simply adults with ID (Neubert et al., 2001).
In 1995, the Division on Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities formally recommended that students with ID be allowed to graduate alongside their peers and continue their education in age-appropriate settings, advocating for greater inclusion and opportunities.
A national database of community-based transition programs, established by Gaumer, Morningstar, and Clark in 2004, identified a total of 101 programs operating in 29 states, providing a valuable resource for families and educators seeking post-secondary options for students with ID.
Current Status of Postsecondary Education for Students with Intellectual Disabilities
Since the 1990s, there have been significant strides made in terms of the availability of literature, research, and resources related to PSE for students with ID, reflecting a growing interest and investment in this area.
Two national databases have been developed in an effort to systematically gather information about available programs across the country (Gaumer et al., 2004; Hart, 2008), providing comprehensive directories for students, families, and educators.
The field has also witnessed a proliferation of program descriptions, qualitative studies, and quantitative studies, contributing to a richer understanding of the characteristics, outcomes, and best practices in PSE for students with ID.
However, it is important to acknowledge that the current knowledge base about PSE services often disproportionately focuses on students with learning disabilities or physical and sensory impairments, leaving gaps in our understanding of the unique needs and experiences of students with ID.
Consequently, less is known about PSE programs specifically designed for students with ID, highlighting the need for more targeted research and program development efforts.
Recent national education studies have also been criticized for providing limited information on students with ID, further underscoring the need for greater attention to this often-overlooked population.
For example, a recent report titled Parents' Expectations and Planning for College (NCES, 2008) cursorily mentioned students with disabilities but failed to specifically address the needs and aspirations of students with ID.
Previous research efforts have largely failed to adequately include students with ID, resulting in a lack of comprehensive data and insights into their post-secondary experiences.
The Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (NCES, 2007), for example, omits students with ID from its sample, limiting its ability to inform policies and practices related to this population.
Similarly, the report Student with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education: A Profile in Preparation, Participation, and Outcomes (NCES, 1999) combines students with ID with other disability labels, preventing a nuanced understanding of their unique challenges and strengths.
Despite these limitations, existing research has provided valuable descriptions of the characteristics, activities, and outcomes of students participating in PSE programs at the state and national level (Gaumer et al., 2004; Hart & Grigal, 2008; Hart et al., 2004; Zafft, Hart, & Zimbrich, 2004).
These studies have demonstrated the potential of PSE to increase access to integrated employment and social activities, as well as to improve collaboration among stakeholders, for students with ID.
Gaumer et al. (2004) defined PSE programs specifically as community-based transition programs, highlighting the importance of community integration and real-world learning experiences for students with ID.
They also acknowledged the inherent difficulty in identifying and locating these programs due to the lack of standard reporting systems and consistent terminology.
Other terms used to describe PSE programs for students with ID include substantially separate programs, mixed programs, and inclusive individualized services, reflecting the diversity of program models and approaches.
The most recent national survey identified approximately 130 PSE programs for students with ID operating across 31 states, indicating a growing but still limited availability of these opportunities.
Further analysis of these programs revealed three overall models:
Mixed or hybrid models, which combine elements of both separate and inclusive programming.
Substantially separate models, which provide specialized instruction and support in a dedicated setting.
Totally inclusive models, which rely on individualized supports to enable students with ID to participate fully in mainstream college courses and activities.
Quantitative Research
Quantitative research methods, such as surveys, have been employed to gather data and describe the characteristics, activities, or outcomes of students participating in PSE programs for students with ID.
These studies have often focused on mixed programs at the state level, as well as separate, mixed, or inclusive models at the national level, providing a broad overview of the PSE landscape for students with ID.
They have also documented the types of programs that serve 18- to 22-year-old students with ID at college or community sites, shedding light on the age range and settings in which these programs typically operate.
Grigal et al. (2001) conducted a survey to interview teachers involved in mixed-model dual-enrollment programs in one state, gathering valuable insights into the key characteristics and challenges of these programs.
Their findings revealed that key characteristics included community-based instruction, job training, participation in college classes, interagency linkages, and strong parental involvement.
At the same time, they identified challenges such as the need for more inclusive opportunities, improved access to classroom space, more flexible teacher schedules, and reliable transportation options.
A similar survey conducted by Neubert et al. (2004) collected information from teachers in mixed programs in another state, providing additional perspectives on the characteristics and challenges of these programs.
Their research specifically focused on programs that served students with ID who exited the secondary education system with a certificate rather than a diploma, highlighting the unique needs and experiences of this subgroup of students.
Zafft, Hart, and Zimbrich (2004) found that participation in postsecondary education was positively correlated with both competitive and independent employment outcomes for students with ID, providing compelling evidence of the benefits of PSE.
Qualitative Research
In contrast to quantitative research, qualitative studies delve deeper into the lived experiences and perspectives of students with ID participating in PSE programs, providing rich and nuanced insights into the impact and effectiveness of these programs.
However, there are relatively few research studies that have employed qualitative methods to document the impact and effectiveness of PSE programs for students with ID.
Existing qualitative studies have taken various forms, including case studies, interviews, and ethnographic observations (Casale-Giannola & Kamens, 2006; Hughson, Moodie, & Uditsky, 2006; Mosoff et al., 2007; Page & Chadsey-Rusch, 1995; Redd, 2004).
Page and Chadsey-Rusch (1995) conducted a comparative study of the experiences of students with and without ID at a community college, providing valuable insights into the similarities and differences in their college experiences.
They found that attending college could expand employment opportunities for students without ID, but that the direct relationship between coursework and career goals was not as evident for students with ID.
Nevertheless, attending college had a positive effect on the development of social relationships for all students, highlighting the social benefits of PSE.
Redd (2004) examined a mixed program operating in a community college setting, gathering perspectives from students, parents, and staff members.
Their findings indicated that students and parents generally expressed satisfaction with the program and the support they received from the staff.
Hughson et al. (2006) found that a significant 70% of students with developmental disabilities who had graduated from inclusive PSE programs were successfully employed, highlighting the potential of PSE to lead to positive employment outcomes.
Mosoff et al. (2007) identified five critical elements that contribute to the success of inclusive PSE programs:
Student engagement, which refers to the active involvement of students in their own learning and development.
Impact on the classroom, which refers to the ways in which the presence of students with ID enriches the learning environment for all students.
Individualized paths, which refers to the importance of tailoring programs and supports to meet the unique needs and goals of each student.
Higher aspirations, which refers to the belief that students with ID are capable of achieving great things with the right supports and opportunities.
Authenticity, which refers to the importance of ensuring that students with ID are treated with respect and dignity and are fully included in all aspects of college life.
Current & Ongoing Research on Postsecondary Education for Students with Intellectual Disabilities
Recognizing the importance of building a stronger evidence base for PSE programs for students with ID, the Office of Special Education Programs has funded several research and innovation projects in recent years.
In 2004, they funded two major projects:
The Postsecondary Education Research Center (PERC) Project, which partnered with dual-enrollment programs in Maryland and Connecticut to evaluate program outcomes and identify best practices.
The College Career Connection (C3) Project, which is an inclusive individual support model that partners with Massachusetts Inclusive Concurrent/dual-enrollment partnerships to support students with ID in inclusive college courses.
PERC staff utilized the PERC Postsecondary Program Evaluation Tool to systematically rate services in key areas, providing valuable feedback to program staff.
Based on the evaluation results, action plans were developed to guide program improvements.
Notably, one PERC site observed a significant increase in the percentage of students exiting the program with a paid job, from 0% to an impressive 90%.
The C3 Project is grounded in an inclusive individual support model, working in close collaboration with Massachusetts Inclusive Concurrent/dual-enrollment partnerships.
The project is dedicated to supporting students with ID as they participate in inclusive college courses, providing them with the necessary academic, social, and vocational supports to succeed.
The model is built upon a student-centered framework that prioritizes identifying and leveraging each student's unique strengths and preferences.
The C3 model is carefully designed to take into account each student's aspirations, as well as the wishes and cultural background of their family, ensuring that the program is culturally responsive and aligned with their values.
Key features of the model include:
Interagency collaboration, which involves close coordination among schools, colleges, vocational rehabilitation agencies, and other relevant service providers.
Comprehensive resource mapping, which involves identifying and leveraging all available resources to support student success.
Person-centered planning, which puts the student at the center of the planning process and empowers them to make decisions about their own education and career goals.
Work-based learning experiences, which provide students with opportunities to gain hands-on experience in real-world work settings.
Educational coaching, which provides students with individualized support and guidance to help them navigate the challenges of college coursework.
Promotion of self-determination skills, which empowers students to take control of their own lives and make informed decisions about their future.
Universal course design principles, which aim to make college courses accessible and inclusive for all students, regardless of their abilities.
Conclusion
Over the past 30 years, the landscape of PSE for students with ID has undergone a remarkable transformation, marked by significant changes in the purpose, scope, and outcomes of these programs.
The evolution of terminology used to describe individuals with ID and the programs that serve them reflects a fundamental shift in beliefs and practices, moving away from stigmatizing labels and towards more person-centered and strengths-based approaches.
The increasing number of programs and services available to students with ID demonstrates that this level of service provision has staying power and is becoming an increasingly integral part of the post-secondary education landscape.
As a result of these efforts, there have been vast improvements in access to higher education for students with ID, opening up new opportunities and possibilities for individuals who