
2/19

THE PART H LONGITUDINAL STUDY (PHLS)

1 9 TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: SECTION IV IV-1

The Part H Longitud ina l S tud y

(PHLS)The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

affirms socie tys comm itm ent th at a l l s tu dents with dis-

abilities h ave the right to a free appr opriate pu blic edu ca-

tion. Part H of IDEA as sists St at es to provide system s of

intervention and family support services to enhance the

developmen t of infants an d toddlers with disabilities an d to

enh an ce the capa city of fam ilies to m eet th e n eeds of their

infan ts an d toddlers . Thes e na tiona l program s ha ve

defined a com prehen sive ap proach to prom ote th e develop-

ment and quality of life of infants, children, youth, andadu lts with disabilities th rough individu alized p rogram s of

services.

Now that these programs are in place, policy makers,

advocates, an d others a re int erested in learning abou t th eir

effects. For exam ple, th e Nation al Longitu din al Tra n sition

Stu dy of Special Edu cation St u den ts (NLTS) h as provided

data on educational results for youth with disabil i t ies .

Now, 10 years after the inception of Part H, the Office of

Special Education Programs (OSEP) is sponsoring the

Part H Longitudinal Study (PHLS).

Background

When Congress passed Par t H, i t established a national

policy of assisting States to develop early intervention

systems for infan ts an d t oddlers with disab ilities (children

from bir th thr ough a ge 2). Th e sta tu te requires a l l Sta tes

pa r t ic ipat ing in Par t H to develop an d implement a s ta te-

wide system of coordinated, comprehensive, multidis-

ciplin ary, in teragen cy program s pr ovidin g appr opriate early

intervention s ervices t o all eligible in fan ts an d t oddlers with

disab ilities a nd th eir fam ilies. In t h e years followin g pas-

sa ge of th e legislation, Sta te an d local agen cies en gaged in

a variety of activities in a n attem pt to en ha nce an d impr ove

existin g services to conform to th e vision a n d th e requ ire-

m ent s of Part H. Th e PHLS will gath er in forma tion abou t


3/19

S ECTION IV. RES ULTS

IV-2 1 9 TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: SECTION IV

how these practices are influencing children and families

served by the Part H s ervice system .

The PHLS will examine the characteristics of infants and

toddlers and families participating in Part H, the services

th ey receive, an d th e resu lts th ey experience. Th e PHLS

will gather data on su ch qu est ions as:

At wha t ages do infants an d toddlers enter Part H ser-

vices? What services do ch ildren an d fam ilies receive?

Wh at proport ion of infants an d toddlers who pa r t ic-

ipate in early intervention services receive special

edu cation an d re la ted services a t a ge 3?

Wha t a re th e costs as sociated with early int ervention?

To add ress th ese types of qu estions , th e PHLS will gath er

longitu dinal dat a a bout how children with disabilities fu nc-

t ion , h ow their fam ilies ch an ge as th eir children age, and

how services su pport ch ild fu nctioning an d fam ily cha n ge.

Wh ile th e PHLS will provide in valu ab le in forma tion t o au di-

en ces a t m an y levels of th e Part H service system , its p ri-

ma ry pu rpose is to p rovide n ationally representat ive dat a

about Par t H par t icipan ts , services, an d resu lts th at can be

u sed for fu tu re policy developm ent a n d evalu at ion . A m ore

in-depth u nd erstan ding of th e children an d fam ilies servedby Part H, th e resu lts of th e services th ey receive, an d th e

costs of the services is needed so that informed public

policies regardin g infan ts a n d todd lers with disa bilities an d

th eir fam ilies can be formu lated.

The Vision of Part H and t he Nee d for th e

PHLS

Part H is a Federal program with four equally important

pu rposes. They are:

(a ) Deve lop and implement a s ta tewide , comprehen s ive ,

coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency program

of early intervention services for infants and toddlers

with disa bilities a n d t h eir families;


4/19



(b) Facilita te the coordination of payment for ear ly inter-

ven tion services from Federal, Sta te, local, an d p rivat e

sources ( including public and pr ivate insurancecoverage);

(c ) Enh ance the S ta tes capac ity to provide qua l ity ea r ly

intervention services an d expan d a nd imp rove exist-

ing early intervention services being provided to

infants and toddlers with disabil i t ies and their

fam ilies; a n d

(d) Enh ance the capacity of S ta te and loca l agenc ies and

service providers to identify, evaluate, and meet the

needs of histor ically u nd errepresented p opulat ions ,

particularly minority, low-income, inner-city, andru ral popu lat ions (34 CFR 303.1).

All Sta tes a re n ow participa ting in Part H.

A critical issue of interest to policy makers is whether

Part H is ach ievin g its in ten ded effect. Part H was inten ded

to bring abou t cha n ges in fou r area s: at th e State level, in

local delivery system s, in th e qu ality of services p rovided to

children and their families , and in the production of

positive effects on children an d th eir families.

Changes at the State level. Part H was intended to create

cha nge in States policies a nd th e infrastru ctur e for adm in-

istering early intervention. For exam ple, Part H requires

States to designate a lead agency, form an Interagency

Coordinating Council (ICC) to advise the lead agency, and

develop pers onn el st an da rds , as well as fulfill several other

requi rements .

Local service delivery systems. Many of the national

policies established for Part H have also been adopted at

th e local level. Local services are coordina ted am ong

a gencies. Procedu res for iden tifyin g pot en tially eligible

infants an d toddlers, as well as pr ocedu res for ma king th e

general pu blic an d referral sou rces a ware of th e availab ility

of early intervention services, are carried out at the local

level. Also, local system s a re reach ing ou t to h istorically

u nder represented grou ps .


5/19



Improve quality of services. Part H also was intended to

improve the quality of services provided to children and

fam ilies. For examp le, services ar e to be provided in a ccor-dance with an individualized family service plan (IFSP).

Services are to be family-focused and provided in the

na tu ra l environm ent , inc lud ing th e home an d commu ni ty

settings in wh ich ch ildren with out d isabilities part icipate.

Positive effects on children and their families. Part H was

designed to have positive effects on infants and toddlers

with d isab ilities an d th eir fam ilies. Services are to be pro-

vided th at will enh an ce developm ent , min imize poten tial for

developmen tal d elay, a n d improve th e fam ilys capa city to

meet th e needs of th eir child.

Sta tes were given s ome flexibility in des ign ing th eir Part H

systems in order to incorporate th eir existin g systems an d

services. Sta tes were also given th e option t o decide which

agency with in th e State wou ld best m eet their needs a s th e

lead agency for the Part H program . One a sp ect of u n der-

stan ding the res u lts exper ienced b y children an d fam ilies

who receive early intervention services is understanding

h ow ear ly int ervention is provided a t th e State an d local

levels.

Goals of Part H: Im pact o n Se rvic e

Sy s te m s

Recent research indicates that Sta tes have implemented

Part H in m an y different ways (Garwood & Sh eehan , 198 9;

Ga llagh er, Harb in, Ecklan d, & Clifford, 199 4). However,

little information exists on how these variations may be

affectin g th e qu ality of service delivery an d th e imp act of

services on ch ildren an d fam ilies. Some of th e potent ially

significan t ways in wh ich S ta tes implemen ta tion of Par t H

may differ include:

Differences in the organization and the level and

resp ons ibilities of agencies involved in th e ear ly in ter-

vention s ystem.


6/19



Th e wide diversity of circu m st an ces fam ilies m ay live

in, as well as the variety of resources available to

children with disab ilities a n d th eir families.

The diverse backgrounds, traditions, and approaches

of th e variety of pr ofess ions involved in pr ovidin g early

intervention services.

The history of early intervention service provision in

each State , including the type and number of agen-

cies th at h ave provided s ervices to th is popu lat ion.

The different levels and stages of agency readiness,

willingness, and financial capacity to implement the

Par t H program .

Goals of Part H: Child and Family Res ults

Bailey and Wolery (1992), in a review of the professional

literatu re on early intervention, ha ve su ggested seven s pe-

cific goals of early in terven tion, a s listed below.

Su pp ort fam ilies in ach ievin g the goals th ey ha ve for

th emselves an d th eir children.

Promote children s active engagem ent , indepen den ce,

an d ma stery of th e environm ent.

Promote p rogress in key developmen tal doma ins .

Build an d su pport childrens socia l competence.

Promote the generalized use of skills in a variety of

relevant settings.

Provide and prepare children for normalized life

experiences.

Prevent the emergence of future problems or dis-

abilities.


7/19



These goals and the congressional s ta tement of purpose

serve as gu idelines th at can be u sed t o help identify ind i-

cators of program imp act on both children an d families .

A review of the major Part H goals indicates that the

expected resu lts a ss ociated with th e program focus on pre-

vent ing developm ent al delay an d prom oting the ch ilds a n d

fam ilys a da pta tion. Most res earch on th e effects of early

intervention to date has invest igated results re la ted to

disability, such as developmental status or social skills.

Th ese are critical resu lts an d will be includ ed in th e PHLS,

bu t other resu lts n eed to be examined a s well. The s pecific

child character is t ics and results to be examined by the

PHLS include:

the type of disability,

functioning within specific developmental domains

(cognitive, communication, motor, self-help skills),

a n d

child engagemen t.

To measure family results, the PHLS will gather data on

fam ilies fram ed in a d irect an d fun ction al way. Th e follow-

ing four critical resu lt dom ains for fam ilies in ear ly inter-

vent ion h ave been identified.

Th e fam ilys ca pa city to m eet th e sp ecial n eeds of

th eir infant or todd ler with a disab ility.

Parent perceptions of their needs and the extent to

which th ey were met b y Part H services.

Parent perceptions of their internal and external

su ppor t sys tems .

The qu ality of life per ceived by fa m ilies.

In J an u ary 1996, OSEP fu nd ed SRI Int ernat ional , in con-

ju nction with th e Fran k Porter Grah am Child Developmen t

Center (FPG), th e Research Trian gle Inst itut e (RTI), an d th e

American Institutes for Research (AIR), to conduct the


8/19



PHLS. Year 1 of PHLS in volved a des ign ph as e du ring

which ma ny options were explored an d m an y choices were

made about the f ina l s tudy des ign , the sample , and thearea s to be measu red. A na tiona l pan el of advisors

reviewed the stu dy design a n d provided feedba ck. In Years

2 th rou gh 5 of th e PHLS, th e design will be implemen ted.

Study Design

Overview of Study De sign

The PHLS is a longitu dinal s tu dy of a n ationa lly represen -

ta tive sam ple of children a n d fam ilies wh o are par ticipa tingin early int ervention services th rough Part H. The resear ch

questions posed for the study are both descr ipt ive and

explan at ory. Th e design of th e PHLS is ba sed on a con-

ceptual framework that identifies three key focal areas of

s t u dy an d their int erre la t ionsh ips: th e cha racter is t ics of

th e children a nd families s erved u n der Part H, Part H ser-

vices, and the results achieved by children and families

wh o receive services. Specifically, th e ques tion s th at a re

th e prima ry focus of PHLS a re:

Who are the children and families being served by

Part H?

What early intervention services do participating

children an d fam ilies receive?

What results do par t ic ipating children and their

families experience?

How do resu lts relate to variat ion s in ch ild an d family

cha racteristics an d services received?

A sa m pling ap proach ha s b een designed th at will yie ld a

n ationa lly represen ta tive sam ple of 3,30 0 ch ildren from 3to 5 cou nt ies in each of 20 Sta tes across th e United States.

The final sam ple of 20 States will be adequ ate to repres ent

the key dimensions of Part H variation at the State level.

Such State- to-State var ia t ions include the number of

children served, geograp h ic dispers ion a n d popu lation s ize,


9/19



eligibility definition, administrative variations (e.g., lead

agency designation) , and numbers of underrepresented

popu lat ions served.

Data will be collected ab out th e infants an d toddlers an d

th eir fam ilies from pa ren ts (or legal gu ard ians ) via r epeat ed

telephon e surveys. Th e su rveys will begin wh en th e fam i-

lies ent er Part H s ervices an d will contin u e u n til th e child

is 5 years old. In a ddit ion to meas u r ing child an d fam ily

chara cteristics an d resu lts, da ta will be gath ered from ser-

vice providers about the early intervention services pro-

vided, inclu ding their costs , via a written s u rvey. The goal

of the written survey will be to provide data that can be

used to better understand associat ions between services

an d resu lts. The dat a an alysis strat egy involves u sing bothdescriptive stat istics an d m u ltivariate an alyses t o exam ine

the types of children and families in Part H, the services

they receive, and the re la t ionships between child and

fam ily resu lts an d Part H s ervices.

Summary

During th e pas t d ecade, variou s legislative programs , su ch

as IDEA Parts B and H, have defined a comprehensive

app roach to prom oting th e developm ent an d qu ality of lifeof infants , children, youth, and adults with disabil i t ies .

Now, policy makers , advocates, a nd others are interested

in learn ing ab out t h e effects of th ese efforts. OSEP is

sponsoring the PHLS to provide data on the results for

infan ts a n d todd lers a n d th eir fam ilies wh o receive services

u n der IDEA, Part H.

Th e PHLS will exam ine th e cha ract erist ics of a n ationa lly

representat ive sample of infants and toddlers and their

fam ilies wh o pa rticipa te in Pa rt H, t h e services th ey receive,

an d th e ou tcomes th ey experience. Data will be collected

from p aren ts or legal gu ard ian s an d from service providers.The da ta will be an alyzed u sing both des criptive st atistics

an d mu ltivariate an alyses. Th e prima ry pu rpos e of PHLS

will be to provide nationally representative data about

Par t H par t ic ipants , services, and outcomes that can be

used for future policy development and evaluation.


10/19



References

Ba iley, D.B. & Wolery, M. (19 92 ). Teaching infa nts an d pres choolers w ith dis abilities .

Colu mb u s, OH: Macmillan .

Gallagh er, J .J . , Harb in, G., Ecklan d, J . , & Clifford, R. (19 94). Sta te diversity an d

policy imp lem ent ation. In L.J . J ohn son , R.J . Gallagh er, M.J . LaMonta gne, J .B.

J orda n , J .J . Gallagh er, P.L. Hut inger, & M.B. Kar n es, (Eds .), Meeting early

interven tion cha llenges : Is s ue s from birth to three . Baltim ore, MD: Pau l H.

Brookes Publish ing Compa ny.

Gar wood, S.G. & Sh eeha n , R. (19 89 ). Designing a comprehensive early intervention

sy stem : The challenging of public law 99-457. Au st in, TX: Pr oEd .


11/19


12/19

S ECONDARY S CHOOL COMPLETION


S econd ary S chool Com pletion

Second ary sch ool completion is a n imp ortant ind icator of

ind ividu al stu dent a ccom plish men t. A high school diploma

is evidence of a stu dent s academ ic ach ievement an d p erse-

veran ce. Completion ra tes also provide evidence of th e

extent to which s chools engage stu dent s in the edu cationa l

process an d, as su ch, are a m easu re of institut iona l perfor-

m a nc e .

Students who do not graduate f rom high school usually

experience lower rates of employment, lower incomes, and

h igher ra tes of incarcerat ion. In add it ion, research ha s

sh own th at s t u dents with d isab ilit ies complete secondaryschool at lower rates than their peers without disabilities.

The reason s st u den ts with d isabilities ha ve lower com ple-

tion rates are u nclear, a nd it is likely th at several different

factors a re in volved. OSEP is sp ons orin g activities to stu dy

an d address th is problem.

Current Trends in High School Completion

Rate s o f Student s with Disabili t ies

Stu dent s with disab ilities m ay complete h igh s chool in oneof two ways. Th ey m ay receive a sta n da rd diplom a, iden -

tical to the one a warded to st u dent s without disabilities, or

they may receive a modified diploma, certificate of com-

plet ion, or other credentia l documenting their program

completion.

As a grou p, st u den ts with d isab ilities ar e less likely to com-

plete high school than their nondisabled peers (Butler-

Nalin & Padilla, 198 9; Edgar , 198 7; Wagn er et al. , 199 1).

In a comparison of high school completion status for

you th a ges 15 to 20 with an d withou t disab ilities, Wagn er

et al. (199 1) fou n d th at of th ose you th with disab ilities wh oleft sch ool in a 2-year period, 57.1 percen t h ad gradu ated .

In contra st , 75 .6 percent of th ose withou t disab ilit ies h ad

gradu ated . Wh en contr ollin g for demograph ic differences

between you th s with a nd with out disabilities (e.g., gender,


13/19



Because special education stu dents are m ore l ikely than the general population to1

be m ale, from low-income families, an d from ra cial/ ethnic m inority groups , th is

an alysis reweights the general education respons es to ma ke the two populationsdemographically similar, therefore controlling for the demographic differences.

in come, race/ e thn icity), the gradu ation ra tes were 57.1

percent a nd 68.4 percent , respectively.1

Stu dent s who do not complete high sch ool are m ore likely

to be unemployed (Hepburn & White , 1990; Rumberger ,

1987), are less likely to be employed full time (William T.

Gran t Foun dation in Wagner et al., 1991 ), an d comp rise a

disproportionat e percent age of th e na tion s p rison p opu la-

tion (Strother, 1986; William T. Grant Foundation in

Wagn er e t a l. , 1991 ). Stu dents wh o drop out l im it their

individua l opportu n ity, in creas e dema n d for social services,

an d lower the overall tax ba se (Catter all, 198 5). In r ecent

years , the n u mber of high-paying m an u factur ing jobs tha t

do not requ ire workers to h ave a high sch ool diploma ha s

declin ed sha rply. At th e sam e time, the n u m ber of serviceind u stry jobs ha s increased. Service ind u stry jobs are per-

ceived as dema nd ing h igh er levels of edu cation a n d s kills,

making secondary school completion more critical for

individual and community economic performance

(Hepbu rn & Wh ite, 19 90; Rum berger, 1987 ).

There are many different ways to calculate graduation

rates for s tu dent s with disabilit ies . This sect ion presen ts

data on graduation ra tes using two of those methods.

OSEP collects data on students ages 14-21 graduating

from h igh sch ool with a diplom a or certificate of comp le-

tion. However, becau se very few 14-, 15-, an d 16-year-olds gradu ate from h igh s chool, it m ay n ot be ap propria te

to calculate graduation ra tes based on the percentage of

s tu den ts age 14 to 21 gradu ating from high sch ool. In-

stead, the gradu ation ra tes are calculated bas ed on a 1 7 to

21 a ge ran ge.


14/19



These s econdary school completion figures a re generated b y dividing the nu mber2

of students with disabilities ages 17 to 21 receiving a diploma or certificate ofcompletion by the total nu mber of stu dents with disabilities ages 17 t o 21. Figuresreported by Wagner et al. are calculated by dividing the number of graduates ages15 to 20 by the total num ber of exiters. Because the den omina tor (exiters) is m uchsma ller in Wagners a nalysis , the reported gradu ation rate is higher.

Based on the tota l number of s tudents with disabil i t ies

ages 17-21 , th e percenta ge of s tu dent s with d isab ilit ies2

gradu ating with a d iploma or certificate in creas ed s lightlyfrom 27.9 percent in 1 993-94 to 28.4 percent in 1994 -95.

A second way to calcu late th e high sch ool gradu ation ra te

is t o divide th e nu mb er of stu dent s with disab ilities a ges 17

to 21 gra du at ing with a d iploma or certificat e of comp letion

by the number of s tudents gradua t ing wi th a d ip loma,

gradu ating with a cer t ificate , reaching th e ma ximu m age,

or dropping out of sch ool. Th is p rovides th e proportion of

stu dents leaving h igh sch ool who completed th eir pr ogram

of stu dy. The 1994 -95 completion ra te u sing this meth od

of calculation was 71.8 percent.

The gradu ation ra te for s tu dent s with out disabilit ies h as

remained steady for several years despite the increased

proportion of secondar y school stu dents from m inority and

disadvant aged backgrou nd s, who historically ha ve ha d th e

lowest ra te of h igh s chool completion . (In fact, th e high

school graduation rates of African Americans are now

equal to or close to those of whites, which have remained

stead y (National Edu cation Goals Pan el, 199 4; Rum berger,

1987).)

It is qu ite com mon for dropou ts to resu me th eir second ary

education or obtain a General Education Development(GED) diplom a by pa ss ing an exam inat ion . However,

youth with disa bilities who dr op ou t ar e far less likely tha n

th eir n ondisabled peers to re-enroll in secon da ry sch ool or

pu rsu e a GED (Sebring et al. , 1987 ; Wagner et a l., 1992 ).

Wagner et al. (1992) found that only 3 percent of youth

with disabilities had obtained a diploma or certif icate of

completion 3 to 5 years after dropping out of secondary

school.


15/19


16/19



f rom dropping out , personnel consistently s tressed the

importan ce of school and concern for th e stu dents

edu cation. They worked with s tu dents even after th ey wererepea tedly t ruant or had dropped out and sent a c lea r ,

consistent message that school is important (Thurlow et

al. , 199 5).

OSEP Initiatives To Improve High School

Com plet ion Rates

From 19 90 t o 1995, OSEP fu nd ed th ree projects to develop,

refine , a nd evaluat e dropout prevention an d intervent ion

stra tegies for youth with learning and emotional/ beh avioral disa bilities. The th ree pr ojects : ALAS (Ach ieve-

ment for Latinos through Academic Success), Belief Acad-

emy, and Check & Connect were based in Los Angeles,

Seattle, an d Min n eapolis, resp ectively. The th ree projects

were known as th e ABC Dropout Prevent ion & In tervention

Stra tegies. They docum ented results for s tu dents a t- r isk

for dropping out of school, implemented school-based

int erventions, encoura ged h ome-sch ool collaboration, a n d

fostered community involvement.

Stu dents who par t ic ipated in th e ABC projects were more

likely than students in comparison groups to s tay insch ool. Th ey failed fewer clas ses , ear n ed mor e secon da ry-

school credits toward graduation, were less likely to have

h igh ra tes of abs enteeism , an d exhibited better in-school

beha vior. Longer term stu dies are needed to docum ent th e

high school completion sta tu s of stu dents who participat ed

in th e projects .

The projects produced and distr ibuted several manuals

tha t pra ct it ioners can u se when designing an d implemen t-

ing their own dropout prevention projects, including:

Sta yin g in School: Strategies for Middle Sch ool Stu -dents with Learning and Emotional Disabilities;

Relationship Building and Affiliation Activities in

School-Based Dropout Prevention Programs;


17/19



PACT Manual: Parent and Community Teams for

School Success;

Tip th e Balan ce: Policies a n d Pra ctices Tha t Influen ce

School En gagement for You th at High Risk for Drop-

ping Out ; an d

Keeping Kids in S chool: Using Check an d Con n ect for

Dropout Prevention.

Summary

While the percentage of students completing high school

has remained steady for a l l s tudents , the percentage of

s tu dents with disabilit ies completing high sch ool has in-

crea sed s lightly in th e pas t few years. Th is is especially

noteworthy because research shows that fewer dropouts

with disabilities return to school for a diploma or GED.

Some edu cationa l services, su ch a s tu tor ing, cou ns eling,

an d enrollment in occu pational cou rses, ap pear to redu ce

dropou t ra tes for s tu dents with disabilit ies . OSEP ha s

funded three projects for youth with learning and

beha vioral problems who are a t r isk of dropping ou t .


18/19



References

Bu tler-Nalin , P. & Pad illa, C. (19 89 ). Dropout: The relationship of student

characteristics, beh aviors, an d perform ance for spe cial edu cation s tud ents .

Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Catt erall, J .S. (198 5). On the social costs of dropping out of school (CERAS Repor t No.

86 -SEPI-3). Sta n ford, CA: Stan ford Un iversity, School of Edu cation.

Ed gar, E. (198 7). Seconda ry program s in sp ecial edu cation: Are m an y of th em

justifiable? Exceptional Children , 53 , 555-561.

Hep bu rn , L.R. & White, R.A. (19 90 ). Sch ool dropouts : A tw o-gene ration problem .

Ath ens , GA: University of Georgia. (ERIC Docu m en t Reprodu ction Service

No. EX328 631).

Levin, H.M. (19 86 ). Edu cation reform for disa dv anta ged s tud ents : An em erging crisis .

Washington, DC: National Education Association.

McDill, E.L., Natr iello, G., & Pallas, A.M. (19 85 ). Raisin g st an da rd s an d retain ing

stu dent s: Th e imp act of th e reform recommen dations on potential dropou ts.

Review of Educationa l Resea rch , 55 , 415-433.

National Education Goals Panel (1994). Data for the na tional ed ucation goals report.

Volum e one: Nationa l da ta . Was h ington, DC: U.S. Govern m ent Prin tingOffice.

Ru m berger, R.W. (198 7). High sch ool dropou ts : A review of issu es an d evidence.

Review of Educationa l Resea rch , 57, 101-121.

Sebr ing, P., Cam pbell, B., Glus berg, M., Spen cer, B., & Singleton, M. (198 7). High

s chool an d bey ond 1 980 , sophom ore cohort, third follow -up (198 6). Data

Users Man u al . Wash ington, DC: Center for Edu cation Stat is t ics .

Stroth er, D. (19 86). Dropping ou t. Phi Delta Ka ppa n , 68 , 325-328.

Th u rlow, M., Ch risten son , S., Sinclair, M., Evelo, D., & Thorn ton , H. (19 95 ). Stayingin school: Strategies for m idd le school s tud en ts w ith lea rning and em otional

disabilities . Min n eapolis, MN: In stitu te of Comm u n ity In tegration.

U.S. Depar tment of Education (1995) . Ind ividua ls w ith Dis ab ilities Edu cation A ct

Amendm ents of 1995 . Was h ington, DC: Au th or.


19/19



Wagn er, M., Newma n , L., DAm ico, R., J ay, E .D., Bu tler-Nalin , P., Mar der , C., & Cox,

R. (1991). Youth w ith disabilities : How a re they d oing? Menlo Park , CA:

SRI International.

Wagn er, M., DAm ico, R., Mar der, C., Newma n , L., & Blackorb y, J . (19 92 ). What

ha ppen s ne xt? Trend s in posts chool outcomes of y outh w ith dis abilities .

Men lo Park, CA: SRI In tern ationa l.

description: tags: section4

Documents