YA Research Brief Two

Disability Awareness and Acceptance in Wisconsin Youth Apprenticeship Programs

Marianne Mooney

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Linda Scholl

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Abstract

The perceptions and practices of Wisconsin’s Youth Apprenticeship (YA) coordinators and instructors regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in their youth apprenticeship programs were surveyed. Specifically, information was gathered on the respondent’s beliefs, behaviors, and depth of knowledge regarding disability-related topics and activities as they pertain to participation in the YA program. While expectations for students with disabilities are high, the educational and vocational needs of many students with disabilities have not been sufficiently addressed in Wisconsin’s YA programs. YA instructors and coordinators, in general, perceived themselves to be uninformed or under-informed about issues relating to the participation of students with disabilities in YA programs and existing support networks. When comparing the perceived importance and actual practices of activities related to accommodations and supports for students with disabilities in YA programs, the trend of high levels of perceived importance and low levels of actual practice is evident.

Introduction

Career and technical education teachers are increasingly serving more students with disabilities in their classrooms and programs. In fact, by twelfth grade, 89% of students with disabilities have taken at least one career and technical education course (Wagner et al., 1993). Moreover, students with disabilities earn more career and technical credits than their peers without disabilities (5.6 and 3.7 respectively), and are more likely to have a vocational concentration (three or more courses in a single occupationally specific field) than other students (Burns, 1996). However, many of these students have not fully participated in work-based learning programs because of discriminatory assumptions about disability and low expectations (Ordover & Annexstein, 1999).

Federal legislation (i.e., Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990; School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994) mandates that the full range of career and technical education programs and services be accessible to students from special populations. Therefore, a primary task for career and technical educators is to ensure that students with disabilities develop the work-related knowledge and skills they have historically lacked, and that certain assurances be provided to help ensure student success. These assurances include curriculum adaptation; career development counseling; assessment of interests, abilities, and special needs; and other services to facilitate the transition of students from high school programs to work or postsecondary education. If students with disabilities are to develop new knowledge and skills that will enable them to be fully enfranchised within the workforce, many of them will need full access to opportunities offered by work-based learning programs. Consequently, career and technical educators must realign and restructure work-based learning programs to better serve students with disabilities.

Research suggests that the educational needs of students with disabilities are not effectively addressed in many work-based learning programs. This is often attributed to the lack of knowledge and understanding of instructors (Cook, Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum, 2000; Kraska, 1996; Lys & Pernice, 1995; Robinson, 1992) regarding students with disabilities who are enrolled in work-based learning experiences. Often, instructors have not been adequately prepared to provide the instruction and support systems that students with disabilities may need (Dirkx, Spurgin, Lavin, & Holder, 1993; HingMcGowan; 1994; Rojewski, 1990). The increased number of students with disabilities participating in work-based learning programs, and the demands of these learners, make it imperative that career and technical educators be fully prepared to serve these students effectively.

The Study

Purpose

Given the positive outcomes associated with youth apprenticeship participation for the general population, and the specific needs of students with disabilities, researchers at the Center on Education and Work (UW-Madison) felt it was important to determine the effectiveness of the apprenticeship model as a work-based learning option for secondary students with disabilities. A three-year directed research study, funded by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), examined, among other things, the perceptions and practices of Youth Apprenticeship (YA) coordinators and instructors regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in their youth apprenticeship programs. Specifically, the respondents were asked to respond to a series of statements relating to their beliefs, behaviors, and depth of knowledge regarding certain disability-related topics. The findings provide insight as to the attitudinal and practical barriers that must be overcome if students with disabilities are to be successfully included in rigorous work-based learning experiences.

Context

Wisconsin’s Youth Apprenticeship (YA) Program is a rigorous two-year school- and work-based learning program for high school juniors and seniors. The Wisconsin YA program provides opportunities for students to participate in work-based learning experiences by integrating technical coursework with applied, hands-on activities related to a particular field or career. Youth apprentices are placed at a worksite in an entry-level, paid position where they work and receive on-the-job training for an average of 10-15 hours/week. In addition, they receive 3-6 hours/week of school-based instruction in a statewide industry-recognized curriculum for a particular occupation. Apprenticeships have been implemented in 21 occupational areas such as manufacturing/machining, biotechnology, hotel/motel, information technology, printing/graphics, and health services. High academic and industry-driven standards which integrate school-based and work-based learning provide apprentices with academic and occupational skills leading to a high school diploma, a Certificate of Occupational Proficiency in a specific industry or trade, and expanded postsecondary opportunities (i.e., articulated credits with area technical or state colleges and universities).

Between 1992 and 2000, 126 students with disabilities graduated from Wisconsin’s YA programs. This number represents 6.2% of the total number of YA graduates. During the 2001-2002 school year, 10% of students participating in YA programs had disabilities. The vast majority (77%) of students with disabilities who participated YA program (1992-2000) had learning disabilities, while other disabilities were represented in much smaller numbers. Approximately 70% of all students who start the YA program go on to completion two years later. Students with disabilities, however, have a much higher rate of non-completion than students without disabilities, approximately 50%. Thus, while students with disabilities comprise 6.2 % of the graduates, they comprise 9% of the non-completers (Mooney & Scholl, 2001).

Procedures

Instrumentation

The Disability Awareness Survey was designed by the authors to measure the perceptions and practices of Wisconsin’s Youth Apprenticeship coordinators and instructors regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in their programs. Specifically, the respondents were asked to respond to a series of statements and questions relating to six particular topics: 1) disability awareness, including disability laws and regulations, 2) Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and the transition process, 3) career awareness and exploration, 4) program recruitment, eligibility and selection, 5) school- and work-based accommodations, and 6) collaboration and consultation.

The survey has four distinct sections. Section One addresses the respondents’ perceptions of having students with disabilities in youth apprenticeship programs. Perceptions toward recruitment, enrollment, career information, counseling, teaching materials, instruction, funding, facilities, job opportunities, placement, program appropriateness, and career choice are investigated. Perception statements are measured using a four-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree).

Section Two examines how well-informed respondents perceive themselves to be on specific disability-related topics, for example, disability-related legislation. Perceptions are measured on a four-point Likert scale (1= not informed, 2= somewhat informed, 3= reasonably informed, 4= well informed). Section Three investigates the respondents’ perceived importance of, and actual participation in, disability-related activities, such as transition planning. Respondents indicate the level of importance of a particular activity as part of their job using a four-point Likert scale (1=not important, 2=somewhat important, 3=important, 4=very important), and their level of actual participation in these activities with a Yes/No response. Section Four provides demographic information on each respondent.

During several phases of survey development, a review team of experts comprised of University researchers, educational administration faculty, and public school-system personnel (YA coordinators, special education teachers, career and technical education teachers) reviewed the instrument and provided suggestions. The survey instrument was then piloted with 8 respondents (4 YA coordinators and 4 YA instructors). Feedback from the review team and pilot served as the basis for developing, retaining, modifying, and excluding certain survey questions and addressing logistical concerns. The survey was determined to be valid as content-related evidence was gathered when several local educators assessed the content, appropriateness, and format of the survey. The final draft of the survey was tested using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (r=.72) and reflected an acceptable level of reliability.

Data Collection

Two mailings of the final survey were conducted. To assist potential respondents in accurately completing the survey, directions and definitions of terms were included with the survey. Responses to the second mailing, one month later, were analyzed for potential bias. Late responses were treated as “non-responses,” and T-tests were performed on the perception statements to determine if significant differences existed between early and late responses. Results showed that late responses were not substantially different from early responses. Therefore, non-response does not appear to have compromised the results of the study.

Sample

A list of 312 YA coordinators and instructors was obtained from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and served as the convenience sample for the mailed survey. A total return rate of 54% (64% of YA coordinators and 49% of YA instructors) was obtained from two mailings. Based on their responses, 49.1% of the YA instructors and 73.4% of the YA coordinators answering the survey have, or have had, at least one student with a disability in their YA program. Approximately 65% of instructors are notified (in writing or verbally) when a student with a disability enters their YA program. These numbers may be an under-estimation of the actual numbers of student participants with disabilities, as some instructors/coordinators were unaware that they had a student with disabilities in their program.

Youth Apprenticeship coordinators provide leadership for the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of the youth apprenticeship programs. They are responsible for serving as the communication link between the state, local school districts, area industry groups, parents, and students. Coordinators oversee the instructional component of YA according to state and local guidelines; organize and provide program mentor, instructor and counselor training; and assist school districts with business recruitment. YA classroom instructors are required to teach the technical subject matter and competencies of a specific YA program and relate their classroom activities to what the youth apprentices are experiencing on-the-job. They are to maintain effective working relationships with employers and communicate regularly with job-site mentors and parents. Workplace instructors are responsible for providing an apprentice with exposure to and hands-on experience in all aspects of the industry in which the apprentices are placed. Survey respondents’ demographics are provided in Table 1.

<< Insert Table 1 here>>

Data Analysis

Detailed analysis of the survey data involved a combination of descriptive and inferential statistics used to address the research questions. Descriptive statistics were employed to describe respondents’ perceptions (aggregated and disaggregated) toward students with disabilities in youth apprenticeship programs. Analysis of variance was used to analyze the significance of differences in perceptions between the two groups: YA coordinators and YA instructors at the 0.05 significance level.

Results

The main objective of the survey was to determine the effectiveness of the apprenticeship model as a work-based learning option for secondary students with disabilities by examining the beliefs, behaviors, and depth of knowledge regarding disability issues of Youth Apprenticeship coordinators and instructors in Wisconsin. Frequency data were summated for statements dealing with six specific topics, including: 1) disability awareness, including disability laws and regulations; 2) IEPs and the transition process; 3) career awareness and exploration; 4) program recruitment, eligibility and selection; 5) school- and work-based accommodations; and 6) collaboration and consultation. Differences between the responses of YA coordinators and instructors are noted for each topic area.

I. Disability Awareness

Survey respondents were asked to what extent they were informed about certain general disability topics (including disability laws and regulations). Aggregate responses from the YA coordinators and instructors who perceived themselves to be reasonably- or well-informed about these particular topics are presented in Figure 1.

<<Insert Figure 1 here>>

As Figure 1 reveals, instructors and coordinators, in general, are not highly informed about issues relating to the participation of students with disabilities in work-based learning programs. In only 5 of the 14 items did more than 50% of the YA coordinators and instructors rate themselves reasonably- or well-informed. Particularly noteworthy are the responses on items concerning: transition planning for students with disabilities, parent participation in program eligibility and placement decisions, support services and resources available to students with disabilities, and the role of community-based agencies in supporting students with disabilities. Only 31-46% of respondents rated themselves reasonably- or well-informed on these items. Taken together, these items indicate that program coordinators and instructors have a low level of knowledge about available supports (e.g., parents, community-based agencies, other support services and resources) with which to collaborate in coordinating services and instruction for students with disabilities. Furthermore, although nearly 6 out of 10 coordinators and instructors consider themselves reasonably or well informed about IEPs for students with disabilities, only 44% indicate they feel reasonably- or well-informed about their own role in the IEP meeting, and 31% feel informed about transition planning.

When the responses from the YA coordinators and YA instructors are disaggregated, YA coordinators consistently perceived themselves to be much better informed about general disability topics and the participation of students with disabilities in work-based learning programs than the YA instructors perceived themselves to be. For most items in Figure 2, a knowledge gap of more than 20 percentage points separates the responses between the two groups. In Figure 2, these differences between perceived levels of information are visually represented.

<<Insert Figure 2 here>>

Slightly more than 60% of all respondents had received training specifically on the topics of disability laws and regulations and characteristics of students with disabilities. Still, these findings indicate that YA coordinators, and YA instructors in particular, are in need of technical assistance and training to update their knowledge base and skills around disability issues affecting students with disabilities in their YA programs.

II. The IEP and Transition Process

When we examine the responses specifically referring to IEP and transition processes, the majority of both coordinators and instructors (69-87%) viewed activities related to transition and the IEP process as very important parts of their job, however, in almost all cases, less than half (25-35%) of them actually performed those activities as part of their jobs. For example, while nearly three quarters of the YA instructors and coordinators surveyed indicated that accessing and reviewing students’ IEP information is an important or very important activity, only slightly greater than one third actually performed that activity. In fact, rarely is there less than a 35 percentage point disparity between respondents’ recognition that an IEP- or transition-related activity is important and their active implementation of that activity.

This indicates a substantial gap between the instructors’ and coordinators’ ability to identify important components of the transition process and their ability to actively develop and implement those components [see Figure 3].

<<Insert Figure 3>>

[L.S.1] Both YA coordinators and instructors were found to have limited contact with special education personnel and were infrequently involved in the process of individualized education program (IEP) development and implementation. However, YA coordinators placed two times greater importance than YA instructors on most IEP-related activities. YA coordinators were almost three times as likely to have been trained in transition planning for students with disabilities than the YA instructors (18.5% and 48.3% respectively). Fifty percent of YA instructors had been trained in participation in individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings, while 67% of coordinators had received this training. The collaboration and coordination between stakeholders in the YA program overall, and the IEP process specifically, appears to be very limited.

III. Career Awareness / Exploration

The provision of career guidance, exploration, and support services in conjunction with knowledge about the world of work appears critical for all youth with disabilities. In fact, 100% of the YA coordinators and instructors in this survey indicated that career preparation is as important for students with disabilities as it is for non-disabled students. Figure 4 shows that, together, the majority of YA coordinators and instructors (65-81%) viewed activities relating to career awareness and exploration for students as an important or very important part of their jobs. Once again, though, a substantial gap is evident between their perceived level of importance and the level of actual implementation of these activities.

<<Insert Figure 4>>

However, YA coordinators placed two times greater importance than YA instructors on five career development-related activities, including: a) assisting students with disabilities in developing job-seeking skills; b) analyzing the pre-vocational and/or vocational background of students to determine the most appropriate program placement; c) assisting students with disabilities in evaluating vocational abilities and preferences; d) assisting students with disabilities in choosing a career goal and/or generating career alternatives; and e) assisting program graduates with disabilities in obtaining postschool placements (i.e., jobs, postsecondary education.

IV. Program Recruitment, Eligibility and Selection

The attitudes of educators for acceptance of all students into career and technical education will be paramount for successful implementation of work-based learning programs. Therefore, it is encouraging that more than 85% of all respondents indicated that all YA programs should attempt to enroll students with disabilities, even though 75% of them consider students with disabilities a “challenge.” The majority (85%) of respondents also agree that consortiums or school districts should establish procedures for describing and communicating to the general community the fact that all YA programs are open to students with disabilities. The vast majority (95% of YA coordinators and 88% of YA instructors) of respondents agree that YA coordinators and instructors [L.S.2] have responsibilities to encourage students with disabilities to consider enrollment in YA programs. The majority (82%) of all respondents agreed that YA information and recruitment materials for students should be free from implications that certain careers are more appropriate or “realistic” for students with disabilities.

Once again, the disparity between respondents’ belief that specific program activities (here, those related to recruitment, eligibility, and selection) are important and their ability to implement those activities is significant [see Figure 5]. Here we see, for example, that while 63% of YA coordinators and instructors view assessing the ability of students to participate successfully in the YA program as an important or very important activity, only 37% were actually performing this activity in their job at the time of the survey.

<<Insert Figure 5>>

Even more striking is the fact that YA coordinators are twice as likely to consult with special education teachers and/or transition specialists in the selection and placement of students with disabilities in YA programs as the YA instructors. While more than 8 of 10 respondents rated this activity as important or very important in their position, slightly less than half that number were actually performing that activity.

V. School- and Work-based Accommodations

While the survey results indicate that almost 90% of the respondents indicate that they provide the same learning activities and projects for students with and without disabilities in the youth apprenticeship program, most of Wisconsin’s YA coordinators and instructors have limited knowledge about the provision of accommodations and supports for students with disabilities. Therefore, while expectations for students with disabilities are high, the educational needs of many students with disabilities have not been sufficiently addressed in Wisconsin’s YA programs. Many YA coordinators and instructors have not been adequately prepared to provide the instruction and support networks students with disabilities need, to say nothing of YA employers and worksite mentors. In fact, even though approximately 62% of YA coordinators and instructors stated that they had training in curriculum accommodation and modification strategies, nearly seven out of ten of them perceive themselves to be inadequately prepared to work successfully with students with disabilities. Additionally, they perceive that nearly two thirds of the employers and worksite mentors connected to the YA program are also unprepared to work successfully with students with disabilities.

17

The respondents reported receiving their training in staff development programs/workshops (60.7%), personal study and work experience (48.8%), as part of their graduate/professional studies (26.8 %), at statewide conferences (25%), and as part of their undergraduate studies (25%). Despite this training, only half of them perceived they were reasonably or well-informed about the larger issues facing students with disabilities in work-based learning programs such as, physical accessibility, workplace barriers, inclusion in the general education curriculum, and support services. Less than 40% of the coordinators and instructors felt reasonably- or well-informed about the strategies or assistive technologies used to accommodate students with disabilities in the workplace or in the classroom. Coordinators were significantly more informed than instructors in the areas of inclusion in general education curriculum (68.8% and 50.4% respectively) and curriculum accommodation and modification strategies (46.9% and 31.1%). Less than 38% reported this same level of information when asked about the strategies used to accommodate students with disabilities in the curriculum, workplace, or assessment practices [see Figure 6].

<<Insert Figure 6>>

When comparing the perceived importance and actual practices of activities related to accommodations and supports for students with disabilities, we continue to see the trend of high levels of perceived importance and low levels of actual practice. This is true for both groups of respondents.

17

The majority of Wisconsin’s YA coordinators and instructors viewed accommodation and support activities as an important part of their jobs (60-80%), however only half of these individuals actually performed these activities on the job [see Figure 7].

<<Insert Figure 7>>

Approximately 25% of the respondents actually modified the school-based and work-based curricula for students with disabilities in the youth apprenticeship program.

VII. Collaboration and Consultation

Collaboration and consultation between stakeholders has been identified as a weakness of the YA program both for students with and without disabilities. For students with disabilities, however, collaboration between YA coordinators, instructors, special education teachers, parents, and representatives from local community service agencies is the foundation upon which successful YA experiences and a productive transition to postsecondary education and work can be built. Figure 8 illustrates that while YA coordinators and instructors are generally aware of the importance of collaboration, the collaborative activities they engage in during their day-to-day practice is very limited.

<<Insert Figure 8>>

The gap between perceived importance of the activity and the actual performance of an activity is most apparent when examining stakeholder consultation and collaboration. For example, while nearly 80% of YA coordinators and instructors believe that interviewing students and parents for feedback is an important or very important program activity, only slightly more than 30% performed this activity. Similarly, while over 83% believed it was important or very important to consult about program development and implementation, only 36-39% actually did so. As a result of this lack of collaboration, students with disabilities may not receive the modifications they need to successfully complete their programs.

YA coordinators placed two times greater importance than YA instructors on four consultation/collaboration-related activities, including: a) consulting with special education teachers and/or transition specialists in identifying needed support services and special materials for students with disabilities; b) facilitating parental participation in the development and implementation of the student with disabilities’ YA program; c) providing technical assistance to employers, work supervisors, mentors and/or co-workers to enable students with disabilities to retain work-based learning site experiences; and d) reviewing and evaluating the adequacy of support services and assistance provided.

Discussion

Including Youth with Disabilities in Work-based Learning Programs. Teacher attitudinal studies represent a large portion of the studies investigating the area of inclusion of youth with disabilities in general curriculum classes. This literature on inclusion of youth with disabilities suggests that teachers have typically exhibited positive attitudes toward the general concept of inclusion (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996). However, in a national study of secondary school-to-work and Tech Prep instructors, only slightly more than half of them assessed their own attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities to be positive (Lombard, Miller, & Hazelkorn, 1998). This was found to be the case in this study too. YA coordinators and instructors in Wisconsin have reservations about including students with disabilities in their programs. These reservations were grounded in inadequate training and/or staff development efforts concerning disability management and transition planning.

In a national survey of attitudes and practices of secondary school-to-work and tech prep teachers as to the inclusion of students with disabilities (Lombard, Miller, & Hazelkorn, 1998) and other similar studies (Dirkx, Spurgin, Lavin, & Holder, 1993; Retish & Greenan, 1991; Rojewski, 1990; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996), educators indicated that they did not feel prepared to meet the needs of students with disabilities who enrolled in their courses. Even when given an effective set of methods, materials, and techniques, approximately one half of the teachers either were unsure or did not believe that they could modify the school-to-work curriculum for students with disabilities (Lombard, Miller, & Hazelkorn, 1998). This unpreparedness left educators feeling overwhelmed by the diversity of their students and their varying needs (HingMcGowan, 1994; Lipsky & Gartner, 1998). Similarly, in our study, YA coordinators and instructors indicated that individualizing instructional strategies and content delivery for youth with disabilities was a challenge. The results of this study also indicate that over three-fourths of the YA instructors did not receive assistance from special educators to modify their curriculum and teaching methods.

One must question how students with disabilities will ever fully participate in such promising work-based learning programs such as Youth Apprenticeship given coordinators’ and instructors’ lack of pre-service and in-service training on addressing the individual needs of students with disabilities. If work-based learning programs, in this case youth apprenticeship, are to be inclusive of all students, then general educators must receive, and special educators must provide, direct support regarding curricular modifications and instructional adaptations. When considering current education reform measures and higher standards in public schools, it becomes paramount for all educators involved in implementing work-based learning programs be able to effectively instruct and support students with disabilities. Currently students with disabilities are often being asked to survive and thrive in work-based learning environments that are sometimes unwelcoming, and with educators and other stakeholders who are unprepared or underprepared. If inclusion is to be effective, school personnel who will be most directly responsible for its success – general educators – must be receptive to the principles of inclusion (Scruggs and Mastropieri, 1996).

Emphasizing Professional Development. The importance of ensuring that educators have the knowledge and skills to serve growing numbers of students with disabilities in general education classrooms cannot be overemphasized. An effective professional development program for teachers is crucial to the successful accommodation of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Professional development must be continuous, in-depth and thorough, rather than cursory and fragmented as appears to be the case currently. If such professional development were provided, both students with and without disabilities would be better served by the Wisconsin YA program and other work-based learning opportunities. With this knowledge, educators can begin to understand and develop possible intervention and helping strategies and, therefore, make a difference in the lives of their students.

Participating in Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and the Transition Process. To meet the goal of helping students with disabilities successfully transition into the workplace, all stakeholders must understand, support, and be actively involved in IEP meetings and transition planning efforts. Related literature shows that the vast majority of general educators reported having never participated in the development of an IEP nor attended an IEP meeting (Kraska,1996; Lombard, Miller, & Hazelkorn, 1998). Similar results were found in this study with YA coordinators and instructors found to have limited contact with special education personnel, and infrequent involvement in the process of IEP development and implementation. IEP participation by YA coordinators and instructors is important since the discussion of the need for and delivery of reasonable accommodations necessary to accomplish program goals and objectives takes place here. Failure to specify exactly what accommodations, aids, and services (e.g., classroom aides, supportive technology devices, and modified curriculum) are needed for student success often results in student/teacher frustration and higher rates of program noncompletion. A wide variety of accommodations must be provided to individual students to ensure increased numbers of students are provided with the support necessary to successfully participate in work-based learning experiences that integrate academic and career/technical skills. Such accommodations must be addressed at the IEP meeting and periodically throughout the program.

Collaborating with Stakeholders. Collaborative instructional approaches have been found to improve the functioning, achievement, and inclusion of students with disabilities (Smith, 1998). Unfortunately, data from the larger study to which this survey belongs [see Scholl & Mooney, 2002] reveal that coordination and collaboration between stakeholders has consistently been identified as a weakness of the Wisconsin YA program. This survey, more importantly, reveals the need to increase the skill base of YA coordinators and instructors (particularly instructors) on how to identify and collaborate with other significant stakeholders.

Wide disparities between perceived importance and actual practice were evident across many program priorities: the IEP process, career awareness and exploration [see Figure 4]; program recruitment, eligibility, and selection [see Figure 5]; and collaboration and consultation [see Figure 8]. The disparities for both respondent groups revealed by this survey are striking in their depth. The differences are most evident, however, when disaggregating the data and examining strictly the YA instructor responses. It is to be expected that YA instructors face time and resource constraints and a seemingly endless scope of job duties. So, it is not surprising that there is a gap between what they view as important activities for including and accommodating students with disabilities and the ability of any given instructor in any given context to implement those activities effectively.

Conclusion

To achieve successful integration, it is critical that educators recognize the areas of need and generate solutions to assist communities and schools in developing the potential of their students with disabilities. These findings provide some insight as to the practical and attitudinal barriers that need to be overcome if students with disabilities are to be included in youth apprenticeship programs and other work-based learning initiatives. Youth apprenticeship program participation could help many learners with disabilities improve their ability to make the transition from school to meaningful employment and/or subsequent education. This requires YA coordinators and instructors (career/technical educators) to have a keener awareness and understanding of disability issues, laws and regulations, and to work closely with employers and other stakeholders in ensuring that students with disabilities have all the services required to perform the job. To meet the instructional challenges presented by youth with disabilities in work-based learning programs, educators must be provided with opportunities to gain work related knowledge, instructional expertise, and associated attitudes needed to collaborate in effective ways with all the related stakeholder groups. With this knowledge and collaborative initiative, work-based learning educators can begin to develop possible intervention and helping strategies for students with disabilities in their classrooms and workplace settings, therefore, making a difference in the lives of these students.

References

Burns, S. (1996). Trends in participation in secondary vocational education: 1982-1992. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Cook, B.G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T.J. (2000). Teachers’ attitudes toward their included students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 115-135.

Dirkx, J. M., Spurgin, M.E., Lavin, R.A., & Holder, B.H. (1993). Continuing education as a “practical problem”: An emerging model for vocational educators? Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 9(2), 41-54.

Hing McGowan, J. (1994). The multicultural vocational classroom: Strategies for improving student achievement. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 16(2), 10-15.

Kraska, M.F. (1996). Trade and industrial teachers’ knowledge related to special populations. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33(2), 47-59.

Lipsky, D.K., & Gartner, A. (1998). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America’s classrooms. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Lombard, R.C., Miller, R.J., & Hazelkorn, M.N. (1998). School-to-work and technical preparation: Teacher attitudes and practices regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21(2), 161-172.

Lys, K, & Pernice, R. (1995). Perceptions of positive attitudes toward people with spinal cord injury. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 18, 35-43.

Ordover, E.L., & Annexstein, L.T. (1999). Ensuring access, equity, and quality for students with disabilities in school-to-work systems: A guide to federal laws and policies. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Education.

Retish, P., & Greenan, J. (1991). Schools and educational institutions in the year 2001. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 14(1), 29-32.

Rojewski, J. (1990, December). Practices and attitudes of secondary industrial education teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Vocational Association, Cincinnati, OH.

Scholl, L., & Mooney, M. (April, 2002). Students with disabilities in Wisconsin’s youth apprenticeship program: Key findings. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children Annual Conference, New York, NY.

Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.

Villa, R.A., Thousand, J.S., Meyers, H., and Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63, 29-45.

Wagner, M., and Others. (1993). What happens next? Trends in postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. The second comprehensive report from the National Longitudinal transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.