strategies for supporting transitions of young children with special needs and their families

http://jei.sagepub.com/Intervention

Journal of Early

http://jei.sagepub.com/content/30/1/1The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/105381510703000102

2007 30: 1Journal of Early InterventionBeth Rous, Christine Teeters Myers and Sarintha Buras Stricklin

Their FamiliesStrategies for Supporting Transitions of Young Children with Special Needs and

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children

can be found at:Journal of Early InterventionAdditional services and information for

http://jei.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jei.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jei.sagepub.com/content/30/1/1.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Oct 1, 2007Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF NEW ORLEANS on December 9, 2014jei.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV OF NEW ORLEANS on December 9, 2014jei.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jei.sagepub.com/

http://jei.sagepub.com/content/30/1/1

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.dec-sped.org

http://jei.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jei.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jei.sagepub.com/content/30/1/1.refs.html

http://jei.sagepub.com/content/30/1/1.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



1

REGULAR ARTICLE

Strategies for Supporting Transitions of YoungChildren with Special Needs and Their Families

BETH ROUSUniversity of Kentucky

CHRISTINE TEETERS MYERS Eastern Kentucky University

SARINTHA BURAS STRICKLIN Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center

Young children with special needs and their families often experience transitions across multipleenvironments in the early childhood years. Many transitions are identified as stressful for childrenand families. In the present study, a series of focus groups involving administrators, practitioners,and family members were held around the United States to identify transition practices that havebeen implemented effectively for children, families, staff, administrators, and communities. Twomajor themes emerged from the data: critical interagency variables, defined as strategies thatsupport an interagency process involving multiple parties; and transition practices and activities,defined as practices that address child, family, staff, program, and community-specific activities.Outcomes from these focus groups included identification of transition strategies for young childrenwith special needs that are considered valuable by parents, providers, and administrators and thatare consistent with theoretical frameworks described in the transition literature.

Transitions involve a process of movement orshift from one environment to another andare an important part of human life, frominfancy through adulthood. This movementor shift requires change, brings new oppor-tunities and challenges, and often is regardedas stressful (Hanson et al., 2000; Jewett,Tertell, King-Taylor, Parker, Tertell, & Orr,1998; Ramey & Ramey, 1999; Rosenkoetter,Hains, & Fowler, 1994). The extant transi-tion literature describes challenges and bar-riers to successful transitions for children andfamilies across the early childhood years andidentifies strategies, models, and approachesthat facilitate this process. These efforts havebeen based on the premise that early transi-

tions often set the stage for future positive ornegative transition experiences (Rosenkoet-ter, Hains, & Fowler, 1994).

Early transitions have been a topic ofinterest and study in the field of earlychildhood special education for three dec-ades. Between 1970 and 2000, the U.S.

Department of Education, Office of SpecialEducation Programs, funded demonstrationand outreach projects focused on the transi-tion of children with disabilities from hospi-tal to home, early intervention to preschool,and preschool to school (Rosenkoetter,Hains, & Fowler, 1994). These projectsproduced a body of literature that outlinedspecific issues, challenges, strategies, and

at UNIV OF NEW ORLEANS on December 9, 2014jei.sagepub.comDownloaded from


2

models to support the transition of childrenwith disabilities and their families across the

early years.One critical theme that emerged in this

literature was the importance of families,teachers, and administrators viewing transi-tion planning as a process that happens overtime (Daniel, 1993; Rous, Hemmeter, &

Schuster, 1994). Within this theme, transitionis viewed as occurring in contexts wherecollaborative linkages are established be-tween preschools, elementary schools, andothers in the community in ways that supportcongruency across programs (Rous, Hem-meter, & Schuster, 1994; Pianta, Rimm-Kaufman, & Cox, 1999).A second major theme in the early

literature was the need for transition plan-ning to address specifically the strengths,needs, and characteristics of individual chil-dren, families, and programs (Conn-Powers,Ross-Allen, & Holburn, 1990). This themeincludes recognition and consideration offamilies’ and professionals’ social supportsas part of the transition planning process(Hanline, 1993).

Another important contribution of the

early transition literature was the need to

identify specific skills that children used toease a transition and support their adjustmentin new settings or programs (Salisbury &

Vincent, 1990). Skills were typically organizedinto four groups: (a) social and classroom

conduct, (b) communication, (c) task-relatedbehaviors, and (d) self-help (Chandler, 1993;Johnson, Gallagher, Cook, & Wong, 1995;Hemmeter & Rous, 1997). Rule, Fiechtl andInnocenti (1990) identified &dquo;survival skills,&dquo;which included the ability to work indepen-dently, participate in groups, follow varieddirections, and use varied materials. Katimsand Pierce (1995) further identified a need forteachers to focus on school readiness to

maximize academic achievement and supportchildren’s ability to respond to various in-structional styles and different environmentalstructures after the transition.

Finally, the early transition literature

emphasized the importance of collaborationbetween and among early childhood pro-

grams as critical to successful transitionefforts (Rice & O’Brien, 1990; Rous, Hem-meter & Schuster, 1994; Rous, Schuster &

Hemmeter, 1999). Many strategies and ap-proaches were identified, including intra- andinter-agency collaboration (Rosenkoetter,Hains, & Fowler, 1994), joint training (Jang& Mangione, 1994; Rous, Schuster & Hem-

meter, 1999; Swan & Morgan, 1993), pro-gram visitation (Rous, Hemmeter & Schus-

ter, 1994; Howell, 1994; Bredekamp &

Copple, 1997), open communication (Rice& O’Brien, 1990), and collaborative estab-lishment and implementation of transitionpolicies and procedures (Conn-Powers, Ross-Allen, & Holburn, 1990; Hanline, 1993;Rous, Hemmeter & Schuster, 1994; Rous,Schuster & Hemmeter, 1999).

While transition has been an area of focusin early childhood special education and

Head Start programs for some time, morerecently transition has become an importanttopic of discussion among all early childhoodproviders. Ramey and Ramey (1998) sug-

gested this paradigm shift has occurred

because of (a) dramatic demographic changeswithin society and communities; (b) the

provision of education to all children, re-

gardless of the presence of major disabilitiesor serious health concerns; (c) the crisis anduncertainty of funding for public schools inmany school systems; and (d) the availabilityof new evidence about the value and effec-tiveness of early childhood interventions andthe question of how to assure that allchildren have opportunities for healthygrowth and development and positive out-comes. To ensure children across the countryexperience a successful transition to school,the National Education Goals Panel (1998)identified 10 major conditions schools needto meet. Three of these conditions are

important in the transition process: (a)schools need to work toward positive transi-tions from home to school; (b) coherence andalignment is needed among early interven-tion, child care, preschool, and elementaryschool programs; and (c) service provisionmust be established that supports children intheir communities.



3

While successful transitions to school are

important for all families, most families ofchildren with disabilities continue to experi-ence many stressful transitions by the timetheir child has reached traditional school age(e.g., 4 or 5 years of age). Often, thesefamilies’ first stressful transition involves

taking a medically fragile child home fromthe hospital. Subsequently, they might transi-tion from one early intervention program toanother or from an early intervention pro-gram to a public preschool program. Al-

though the transition experiences of youngchildren with disabilities and their families

vary greatly in the early years of life, twocommon transition times for young childrenwith disabilities and their families are at 3 and5 years of age. At age 3, children with specialneeds and their families typically transitionfrom home-based services to preschool, froman early intervention system to preschool orfrom child care to preschool. At age 5, typicaltransitions involve movement from preschoolto kindergarten, from home to kindergarten,or from child care to kindergarten.

These multiple transitions in the lives ofyoung children with special needs continue tobe cited by administrators, practitioners, andfamilies as an area of concern in both theliterature (Pianta & Cox, 1999; Ramey &

Ramey, 1998) and in Annual PerformanceReports (APR) states submit to the Office ofSpecial Education Programs at the UnitedStates Department of Education. While theearly transition literature and professionalorganizations (e.g., Division for Early Child-hood) have provided information and offeredstrategies for how to facilitate more positivetransition experiences for young children andtheir families, much of this literature is basedon small-scale studies or evaluations of

specific models or approaches to transition.This work has provided support for some keypractices and strategies for the transition

process; however, to date, there have been nolarge-scale studies of practices and strategiesthat have been identified or validated sys-

tematically.The purpose of the present study was to

identify common transition practices that

have been implemented effectively for chil-dren, families, staff, administrators, andcommunities. The following research ques-tion guided the study: Are there commontransition practices currently used in the fieldthat administrators, service providers, andfamilies identify as effective for supportingfamilies and children as they transition fromearly intervention to preschool programs orfrom preschool to kindergarten?

METHOD

Study DesignThis study was part of the research beingconducted by the National Early ChildhoodTransition Center (NECTC), which has fourmajor areas of study focused on the transi-tion of young children with disabilities at

3 years and 5 years of age: (a) identificationand synthesis of literature on effective

transitions; (b) identification of specific child,family, provider, and program factors thatsupport effective transitions; (c) identifica-tion of state factors that impact and supporteffective transitions; and (d) identification ofsocially valid transition practices. Within thefourth focus area, three independent studieswere conducted as part of an iterative processto identify socially valid transition practices.The first study involved a national survey ofpublic school preschool teachers to identifytransition practices they use to supportchildren and families as they enter and exitpreschool services. The second study in-

volved a series of regional working forumswith families, providers or teachers, and

administrators to identify specific issues andstrategies to support the transition of chil-dren with significant disabilities and thosefrom culturally diverse backgrounds.

The third study, described in this article,involved the use of focus group methods to

identify strategies believed to be effective forsupporting children’s and families’ transi-tions from early intervention to preschooland from preschool to kindergarten. Becausethe overall purpose of the present study wasto elicit transition strategies based on pre-vious experiences and various perspectives of



4

Table 1

Participant Role in Early Childhood Transitions

Note. Total percentages do not equal 100% due to rounding.

professionals and family members, focus

groups were an appropriate format to

support participant interaction and dialogueto obtain this information (Kreuger, 1994;Patton, 1990).

ParticipantsA purposive sample (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)of potential participants was recruited

through a list of registrants for nationaland regional early childhood conferences.We wanted to include professionals and

families who had participated in early child-hood transitions so we extended invitationsto participate to administrators and practi-tioners in early childhood programs, nationalexperts (e.g., researchers, consultants), andfamily members of children with disabilities.The individuals who participated in the studyhad experienced a transition from earlyintervention to preschool special educationprograms or from preschool to kindergarten(see Table 1).Ten focus group sessions were planned at

seven conferences: Division for Early Child-hood (DEC) national conference (2003),National Association for the Education of

Young Children (NAEYC) leadership con-ference (2003), Head Start National Transi-tions Conference (2003), George WashingtonUniversity Annual Community Forum (2003),Parent Alliance national conference (2004),National Association of School Psychologistsannual conference (2004), and NAEYC Na-tional Institute for Early Childhood Profes-

sional Development (2004). Of these 10

planned focus group sessions, nine were held.For the 10th focus group session only oneperson attended; therefore, an interview withthis participant was conducted in lieu of thesession. Responses from this interview werenot included in the analyses conducted as partof the present study.Of the total focus group participants (N =

43), 33 identified themselves as either practi-tioners, administrators, trainers or faculty/researchers; 10 identified themselves as fam-ily members who had children with disabil-ities. Participants represented 18 differentstates and they worked in a variety of

settings. The size of each focus group rangedfrom 2 to 10 participants. Table 1 shows thenumber of participants in each focus groupby identified role.

Data CollectionBefore attending a session, participants re-ceived the questions to be asked during thefocus group via electronic mail. A handoutthat listed these questions also was distribut-ed to participants during the focus groupsession. Five questions (see Table 2) weredesigned to elicit information from partici-pants about strategies and practices that theybelieved were effective for facilitating thetransition of young children with specialneeds from early intervention to preschooland from preschool to school-age programs.These questions were used to guide the focusgroup discussion. Sessions were conducted



5

Table 2Focus Group Questions

by members of the NECTC research team.Most research team members had worked

previously as practitioners in early childhoodand had participated in transitions for

children in early intervention, preschool,and kindergarten.A focus group leader was identified from

the NECTC research team. Each focus groupleader was provided with written proceduresand a detailed protocol. The protocol in-

cluded a script to introduce the purpose ofthe focus group and the research project,guidelines for participation, the questions tobe posed to the group, and a script to be usedto conclude the session. One member of theresearch team served as the facilitator whileanother served as an observer and note taker.The observer took field notes during thefocus group session and also reviewed the

script as the focus group was occurring, tocheck adherence to written protocols. Lengthof the focus groups ranged from 60 and90 min.

Data AnalysisFocus group discussions were audio taped,transcribed verbatim, and transcripts werereviewed for accuracy. Data analyzed werethe transcriptions, field notes, and responsesto an end-of-session questionnaire. These

data were analyzed using QSR NVivo

(Richards & Richards, 1994); however, onlythe transcriptions were used to generate thecodes. Field notes and questionnaire responseswere used only to ensure trustworthiness. An

inductive approach was used for the data

analysis, as comparisons between the narrativeresponses were made and coded (Strauss &

Corbin, 1994). The initial set of codes from thefirst focus group was created by the secondauthor, who was naive to the extent earlychildhood special education transition litera-ture at the time of the study. The first andsecond authors met to discuss the initial codingframe. The second author then coded the

remaining focus group transcripts using thisframe, adding and revising codes as necessary.Throughout the coding process, the second

author met with the first author regularly todiscuss emerging codes and both authors

agreed on all final coding decisions.Written field notes, data from the follow-

up questionnaire, and evaluation of inter-coder agreement were used to examinetrustworthiness of the data throughout thestudy. Multiple observers were trained in thefocus group process and at least one observerwas present at all focus group sessions totake notes about major themes emergingfrom the group, nonverbal behavior and

body language of the participants, and

general information about group relation-

ships. These notes were used to inform dataanalyses by comparing the observer’s per-

spectives about the tone of the focus groupswith the tone suggested in the written

transcripts.At the end of the focus group session,

participants were asked to complete a ques-tionnaire. The questionnaire had three parts:



6

Table 3

Questionnaire Items: Feedback about Focus Group Session

Note. Not all respondents answered the multiple choice questions.

(a) five questions designed to elicit additionalcomments about focus group topics, orga-nized by the five focus group questions; (b)three questions to elicit participants’ perspec-tives about the processes used for the focus

group session (see Table 3); and (c) six

questions about the participants’ transitionexperiences and their professional back-

ground, if appropriate. The informationobtained from these questionnaires was usedduring data analysis by comparing writtenresponses to verbatim transcripts to helpclarify initial coding categories and to helpevaluate the trustworthiness of the tran-

scripts. Written responses from the question-naire were not included in the coded state-ments used in the final analysis.

Intercoder agreement was evaluated to

support the consistency of judgments madeduring the coding process (Boyatzis, 1998).Following the initial coding of all items, thecoding criteria, definitions, and categorieswere provided to a third coder. This coderwas a graduate student affiliated with the

project. The second author met with the thirdcoder to provide a synopsis of the codingcriteria, definitions, and categories. The thirdcoder independently coded 20% of the data

fragments into the identified categories andthemes. Simple percent agreement was cal-culated (agreements divided by agreementsplus disagreements) and 57.5% agreementwas obtained (see Table 4). Based on this

agreement level, discussion and clarificationof the coding process occurred between thesecond author and the third coder. Compar-ison of codings and discussion about dis-

agreements was conducted to clarify codingcriteria, definitions, and categories. The

coders made changes to the coding scheme,such as broadening or narrowing definitions.The data fragments were then recoded basedon the adjusted codes and categories. Theagreement scores were calculated using thesame formula and an 84.6% agreement wasobtained. Subsequently, further revisionswere made to the coding criteria, definitions,and categories. The third coder independent-ly recoded another 20% of coded data. Usingthe revised coding criteria, definitions, andcategories, 100% agreement was reachedwithin each category and no additional

changes to the coding frame were made.The categories identified and validated by

the third coder were subsequently comparedto a conceptual framework on transition



7

Table 4Percent Agreement by Coding Category

Note. 20% of data fragments were randomly selected to evaluate percent agreement.

(Rous, Hallam, Harbin, McCormick, &

Jung, 2007; see Figure 1 ) developed concur-rently through the four major NECTCtransition studies described previously. Re-sults from this comparison showed the in-

ductive coding scheme and conceptual frame-work generally were consistent.

RESULTS &dquo; ’

’

A total of 780 statements were transcribedand coded. Of these, almost half (n = 387) ofthe statements were identified by the secondauthor as issues encountered during the

transition process that did not include

a strategy to address the issue or issues not

related to transition (n = 3). These state-

ments were excluded from the content

analyses. For example, the statement

&dquo;... pre-K teachers are not seen as havingthe same level of professionalism. They’reseen more as babysitters...&dquo; was not includedin the analyses. If a statement included bothan issue and a potential strategy, it wasincluded. For example, the statement, &dquo;I feel

very bad for some of our teachers because

they’re put in the situation where they don’thave support from their administrators and Ithink that’s where it needs to come from andthat’s where the ball gets dropped&dquo; was

included because it identified a strategythought to be important (i.e., support from

Figure 1.Conceptual Model of Early Childhood Transitions (Rous, Hallam, Harbin, McCormick, &

Jung, 2007) .



8

Table 5

Major Themes and Categories of Transition Strategies Identified

Note. na = number of coded statements.

administrators). Three-hundred and ninety transition) and preschool to kindergartenstatements were identified as having specific (age 5 transition) were identified. Approxi-strategies to support the transition process mately 43% of data fragments referred to theand were included in the coding analyses. early intervention to preschool transition or

Statements ranged in length from 9 to 260 to both age-level transitions. The majority ofwords. Seven categories of strategies and two specific examples provided by respondentsmajor themes emerged from the data (see related to preschool to kindergarten transi-Table 5). Within the categories, specific sets tion (see Table 6); however, responses fromof strategies that facilitate the transition of participants often reflected examples or

young children with special needs from early statements that addressed both transitionintervention to preschool programs (age 3 periods under study.

Table 6Transition Strategies Represented in Data Fragments by Type of Transition



9

Theme 1: Critical Interagency VariablesCritical interagency variables was the first

major theme (n = 207 coded statements;54.6%). Strategies associated with this themesupport an interagency process that involvesmultiple parties including families and vari-ous agencies. This theme included three

categories of activities: (a) supportive in-

frastructure, (b) relationships and communi-cation, and (c) continuity and alignment.

Supportive infrastructure. The most prev-alent category of strategies was associatedwith the infrastructure needed to supporttransition successfully (n = 88 coded state-ments) and included four specific types ofactivities. The most common was related to

a set of strategies to guide the transition

process (n = 36). These strategies emphasizedthe use of written materials, specifically thosethat provide guidelines for the transition

process, forms that support specific transi-tion activities, and transition plans. As oneparticipant noted, &dquo;Developing a transitionplan. I think that helps. And they have it inwriting. But you have a plan and you put it inwriting.&dquo; This category included materialsthat outline specific roles and responsibilities,such as &dquo;the sending staff responsibilities, thereceiving school’s staff’s responsibility.&dquo; Asone participant stated,

At our preschool meetings, ... there’s a formthat’s put out again by the county, county-wide preschool programs that talks about

responsibilities, for the preschool staff versusthe base school staff, who’s responsible forsetting up meetings, contacting family, writ-ing IEP goals and objectives, those types ofthings so that form is available, and every-body receives it.

Interagency agreements were mentioned fre-quently as a tool to support more positivetransitions and to help articulate roles andresponsibilities across agencies and programsat both the state and local level.

We really followed that up with a much moreexpanded state level interagency agreementthat really helped, and we expanded ournumber of partners so it wasn’t just betweenC and B but it was also between Head Start aswell as our state supported schools.

Participants indicated, however, that it oftenwas difficult to get interagency agreements inplace at the local level, &dquo;We have a state ...

interagency agreement, but then locally eachdistrict has to create their own local, andthey’re just having a hard time with that atthis point.&dquo;

At the child level, written materials in-

cluded forms for sharing child specific in-

formation relevant to transition success, asindicated by one participant:

I think one of the important things I saw aspart of the public education pre-K was theportfolio piece that followed the children thatthe teachers had gathered. Our public schoolsystem designed a rubric in a type of genericchecklist that was used in the parent confer-ences twice a year, but it was also part of thatpackage so if you had a COR [ChildObservation Record; High/Scope, 2003] or

you had Creative Curriculum checklist

[Teaching Strategies, 2002], you had thechild’s work samples, and you also had thisgeneric checklist, [which] was hopefullysomething that they could rate, [and] thathad a little bit of information to hand to theteachers. I think that was an important pieceof it too.

The use of transition policies, at both the stateand local level, was the next most prevalentset of strategies (n = 26). At the state level,this included the use of policies related toparental choice and state options for chang-ing placements at age 3 years and those thatsupport and extend federal transition regula-tions. For example, one participant notedthat in their state they expanded policy tohelp balance the transition responsibilitiesacross agencies:

One of the first things that we realized that weneeded to do was to change the state

regulations around transition because if youlook at the federal IDEA regulations youknow that, you know it’s heavy on the Part Cside but not on the Part B side and we reallywanted to balance those scales and level the

playing field so we grafted brand new stateregulations so that there was more shared

responsibility between the lead agency andthe state department of education.

For some participants, state policies werehelpful in guiding the transition process at



10

the local level; for others state policies wereless helpful: &dquo;I think the localities interpretand develop their own way of transitioningthe kids because there is no written, specificdirection for that.&dquo; At times, actual imple-mentation of policies was an issue. One

participant noted

I can tell you what’s best practice, what isbest practice at the state level as far as policyis concerned....but in reality there is a differ-ence between what state policy is, what localwritten procedures are, and what actuallyhappens.

In addition, participants raised concerns

about differences in policies across localdistricts and agencies, which made transitionplanning inconsistent across programs anddistricts. &dquo;Unfortunately, there are so manydifferent local agencies tied to so many schooldistricts that parents and families that wouldhave a smooth transition in one district ....would have issues in another district.&dquo;

The next most common set of strategiesdescribed related to dedicated personnel fortransition planning (n = 19). This includedpersonnel designated to support the transi-tion process for families and children, such asa service coordinator or transition coordina-tor. Participants stated that having personnelwhose primary focus was transition was

helpful to the process. As participants de-scribed, the person could help by &dquo;makingsure that families have names and phonenumbers or contacts for agencies or pro-grams that can help them with concerns thatthey have&dquo; or by &dquo;get[ting] the ball rolling...the one’s who fill out all the forms and geteverything in on time.&dquo;

Finally, some participants felt stronglyabout the need for strategies that demon-strate support from administration (n = 7) asimportant to a successful transition process.These participants felt that their &dquo;hands weretied&dquo; in implementing specific transitionactivities without the direct support of

administrators. For example, two focus

group participants said, .

I know with our transition, even just withmyself a lot of times it means thinking outside

the box. What are those...things that can helpus? And, so in that sense I do feel bad forteachers when they always don’t have the

support higher up and it’s not always theirfault that they can’t help our children

(Participant 1 ).I feel very bad for some of our teachersbecause they’re put in the situation where

they don’t have support from their adminis-trators and I think that’s where it needs tocome from and that’s where the ball getsdropped (Participant 2).

This support included the top down or statelevel, which was seen as necessary for

collaborative transition planning to be suc-cessful, as reported by these participants: &dquo;Atthe heart of what we’ve done is to build those

community partnerships through our effortat the state level&dquo; (Participant 1 ) and &dquo;[the]relationship between Head Start, early in-

tervention, and early childhood at the locallevel ....had to be started at the top and comedown&dquo; (Participant 2).

Relationships and communication. Thesecond largest category under the first themerelated to the importance of relationshipsand communication in the transition process(n = 78) and included two major sets of

strategies. Participants emphasized the im-portance of building interagency relationships(n = 51) to create a seamless system oftransition from birth to 5 years of age. Asone participant noted: &dquo;What we’re hearingfrom families is their positive experience is

directly related to how the partners come

together at the community level to supporttheir transition effort.&dquo; The value of each

agency understanding the philosophy andstructure of the other agencies was cited ascrucial in developing strong relationships. Asone participant stated, &dquo;We knew that if theydid not understand the basic pieces of theirsystems, not only the policies and proceduresbut the philosophies, the values around thosesystems that they couldn’t build partner-ship.&dquo; One strategy presented to help supportmore positive relationships and communica-tion was attending and participating in

meetings and encouraging dialogue betweenagency staff. Opportunities included inter-

agency meetings, staff meetings, and IFSP



11

and IEP meetings. Staff meetings often werescheduled regularly to support the transitionprocess, as described by this participant: &dquo;Wemeet twice a month.... and it contributes tothe smooth transition and the sharing ofknowledge and the sharing of informationbetween the preschool, the Head Start

teacher, and the kindergarten teachers.&dquo;Cross program communication and collab-

oration also was mentioned by many partic-ipants (n = 27). They described opportunitiesto discuss broad transition issues amongvarious stakeholders. As one participantnoted, &dquo;Actually getting together with theschools, the LEA’s, with the early interven-tion, with Head Start, with all of [the]community partners [and] family membersand bringing communities together to reallylook at [transition].&dquo; Participants also men-tioned training opportunities for staff thatoccur across agencies and programs as an,&dquo;approach to transition...[that included] thecross-training of all the entities that are

engaged in the [transition process].&dquo; Thesetraining opportunities were seen as beneficialto relationships, as one participant indicated:

We invited the Head Start folks into our

training session.... I think the real pluswas...that a relationship... was establishedby the Pre-K teachers and supported by theprincipal at the kindergartener center, so

everybody knew everybody.

Contact and communication between pro-gram staff also was discussed as an importanttransition activity, especially for families andchildren. For example, one participant said,

The kindergarten teacher starts communicat-ing with the parent and the preschool teacheris still communicating with the parent and thekindergarten teacher and the preschool teach-er ....get together and talk about what’s

going.... That seems very effective, that worksvery well for the kids. So when they come backto kindergarten after the summer, they’vealready been in that class, they know theroutine, the parent has a relationship with theteacher and we find that that’s very successful.

Continuity and alignment. Forty-onecoded statements were organized undera category related to the continuity and

alignment between sending and receivingprograms. Participants provided several ex-amples of the importance of continuity (n =

21) in services across programs or coherenceacross programs in terms of curricula and

expectations. Participants indicated that theuse of developmentally appropriate practices,especially for children who have develop-mental delays and special needs, can helpsupport more positive transitions. Havingunrealistic expectations of young childrenwas seen as harmful to the transition process;however, even if the expectations were lessthan desirable, participants indicated that

knowing and understanding the expectationsalso was important:

I kind of get amazed at how differentexpectations can be, community to commu-nity, school to school and having someunderstanding, I mean I may not alwaysagree with what the expectations will be atkindergarten, but I think knowing what theexpectations are, you know, is real important.

Continuity of related services personnel fromthe sending to the receiving environment wasalso discussed as part of an optimal transi-tion.

Alignment (n = 20) was another promisingstrategy in supporting more positive transi-tions that was described by participants. Inthis case, alignment was mentioned in re-

lation to the conscious and transparentconnections that are made between programguidelines and curricular expectations; howthe different parts fit together. This includedalignment at several levels:

Comprehensively, looking at aligned standards,looking at aligned guidelines, looking at alignedtraining, looking at an aligned governingstructure, whether it be at the local level or atthe state level.... in all of those pieces, private,for-profit, non-profit, Head Start, state-fundedpre-K, [and] family child care.

Alignment of program guidelines and curric-ula were mentioned as important so that

everyone &dquo;knew the program met thatcriteria. No matter where you were, you stillhad to run an approved curriculum and meetthese standards.&dquo;



12

Theme 2: Transition Practicesand ActivitiesTransition practices and activities was thesecond major theme (n = 172 coded state-ments) and was defined as groups of prac-tices that address child, family, staff, pro-gram, and community-specific activities. Thistheme included four categories of activities:(a) preparation of families and children fortransition, (b) program visitation, (c) in-structional activities, and (d) use of commu-nity resources.

Preparation of families and children fortransition. The first category related to

activities that supported the preparation offamilies and children for transition (n = 84coded statements), and included three sets ofstrategies. The majority of preparation activ-ities were related to family participation inmeetings (n = 62), specifically IFSP and IEPmeetings and transition conferences. Transi-tion-specific meetings were seen as importantfor the providers and the children, as de-scribed by this participant:

If you don’t involve the staff of both

preschool and the regular school system,and the nurses, and the administrators, andwhoever else you’re going to be [workingwith]. If you don’t have those transition

meetings then you’re flying blind and thatdoes affect the student. So, that’s crucial.

Family participants indicated that these

meetings served as a way to introduce themto other programs, staff, and classrooms.

Teachers have been able to introduce parentsat the IEP meeting to the staff that might beserving the child next year. Or invite that stafffrom another school that’s not housed in their

building. Sometimes they’ll even, go down tovisit the classes with the student. So, usuallythere’s some familiarity, at least by Februarywith that [IEP} meeting.

Family members in the focus groups reportedthat they were discouraged somewhat by thefact that many times, the &dquo;people in on themeeting were not the people who ended upbeing [their child’s} teachers.&dquo;

Participants also reported the importanceof sharing information with families as part of

transition planning (n = 16). This includedproviding information on options availableto families, information about the transitionprocess, and what is going to happen. Oneparticipant described, &dquo;talk to them at lengthabout what was coming up, what it was weexpected, how the process was going to

happen. To help the family feel comfortableand know something, that there was some-thing for them.&dquo;To a lesser degree, other preparation

activities included specific workshops designedfor parents as a way of helping them betterunderstand the transition process (n = 6). Aspart of the training process, many partici-pants referred to the need to help familiesunderstand the many acronyms that wereused in the field of early childhood specialeducation. &dquo;What the heck is a PLOP? You

know, all those... acronyms... PLOP tookme a year and a half - Present Level ofPerformance.&dquo; Other strategies recom-

mended for training included providing in-formation through a panel of presenters, asdescribed by this participant: .

They have this big day in which teachers,parents, whoever, is welcome to come in andthey have speakers talking about kindergar-ten, the preschool to kindergarten transitionand it, the panel, consisted of pediatrician totalk about the health, how vulnerable the

preschool child is going into kindergarten,and a social worker, psychologist, and howthe impact of the transition on parents aregoing to be. Then there’s a language arts

specialist, I think there’s a math, whohappened to be an author of a book, as partof the panel. So there [is] a lot of informationshared to all the people concerned. And I dowant to see that happen where I am now,because it was really helpful, very, veryinformative.

Program visitation. Another category ofstrategies under the theme, transition prac-tices and activities, was related to programvisitations (n = 45) and included three

specific types of visits mentioned by focusgroup participants. The most common typeof visit was family visits to programs beingconsidered for their child’s placement (n =

18). This was seen as helpful in supporting



13

the parent’s understanding of what was tocome after the transition of their child, as onefamily member described:

This is one of the things that was helpful forus, was that someone at one time had

suggested that we go to the school at thebeginning of the year, so we knew becausea lot of times you start thinking about thenext year or the next transition in May orApril and you go and you see these kids andyou’re thinking, &dquo;There’s no way my kid is

going to fit in here!&dquo; because they’re notwhere they are, but our preschool teachersuggested going at the beginning of the schoolyear to look at a kindergarten program so wecould see what it looked like at the beginningof the year so we could get a feel for, &dquo;OK, ifN. is there at the beginning of the year is thatwhere he would fit in and are those the thingsthat would work for him?&dquo; So that was

something that I’ve tried to do, kind of

throughout, is to keep looking at things atthe beginning of the year when you’re notalways thinking about that, that is helpful.

Child visits to a receiving program (n = 16)also were mentioned. In some cases, partic-ipants indicated that a familiar adult accom-panied the family or child to a new program,which was seen as beneficial.

It was nice to have the person who had beenin our home for so long and had beena constant for so many weeks and so manymonths to come with that child and say,&dquo;This is your new school.&dquo; (Participant 1)My son’s preschool teacher came with us tothat first meeting after the kindergarten and Ithink that was absolutely the best

thing.....that really, really helped the staff tounderstand. She talked about my son and youknow, things that work and that don’t work,because that would be for him and it reallydid help the school to understand him a littlebit better before he walked into the school.

(Participant 2)

Finally, participants reported that their

programs were able to arrange staff visitsbetween the receiving or sending programs (n= 11). &dquo;We... allow substitute time for ourteachers to go to kindergarten and the

kindergarten teachers to come to our pro-gram and visit&dquo;, which promoted communi-cation between staff. In the words of one

participant: &dquo;Sometimes just having that

teacher having her eyes opened and comingback and telling the parents has been

a bridge. It’s been helpful.&dquo;Instructional activities. The third category

related to the theme, transition practices andactivities, included activities designed to helpchildren or children and families with the

transition (n = 36) and included two types ofstrategies. Program-wide activities were thosedesigned for both child and family members (n= 22) and included home visits, formal

orientation events, and individualized materi-als. Home visits &dquo;before a child came into our

program&dquo; was mentioned as a successful

practice for supporting transition. As one

participant described, these home visits al-

lowed them to &dquo;make sure that the families

were comfortable [and as] a way to builda relationship with the family, with the child,before the child comes to school.&dquo; Participantsalso described formal orientation events thattake place prior to the start of a program, suchas kindergarten, and are designed to helpfamilies meet staff and learn about the

programs in which their child will be partici-pating. These events were described in a num-ber of ways including &dquo;orientation&dquo;, &dquo;meet-the-teacher night&dquo; and &dquo;back-to-school&dquo; days.&dquo;The mayor has a back-to-school day on theweekend and it’s a huge celebration with

vendors passing out pencils and .... musicand games.&dquo; This participant also noted that inthe same community, the mayor has &dquo;encour-aged businesses to give a day off on the firstday of school, so that families can spend themorning taking their child to school.&dquo;

Finally, a number of activities describedinvolved the use of individualized materialsto support transition planning. These in-

cluded items such as a &dquo;calendar of transitionactivities from August-September throughJune of the year when the child is in his orher last year of preschool&dquo; to help familiesand children prepare for important transitionpoints. In addition, &dquo;transition packets&dquo; or&dquo;handbooks&dquo; also were mentioned and de-scribed. These materials provided basic in-formation for families on the transition

process, including strategies and activities

they could use to help prepare both them and



14

their child for an upcoming change in

programs. One participant noted, &dquo;It’s so

important that the parent understands howto navigate towards that [new] system be-cause that ultimately impacts the child in

more ways than one.&dquo;

Child-specific activities (n = 13) were thosethat were conducted in the child’s current

environment to support the child’s prepara-tion for a new setting. For example, oneparticipant described activities that were

designed to help a child in early interventionprepare to ride a school bus when they got topreschool, &dquo;by taking pictures of the schoolbus, as well as taking them to the bus garage,and taking several pictures of them on thebus.&dquo; Another participant described severalpreparatory activities that were implementedin the last year of preschool that focused onwhat she termed &dquo;survival skills,&dquo; such as&dquo;how do you walk down the hall, how doyou get to art, and what do you do here, howdo you wait for the bus.&dquo;

Community resources. The last categoryof activities related to making communityresources available for family members tosupport transition (n = 19) and includedthree types of strategies. Strategies includedthose that strengthened the relationship ofchildren and families with schools. One of themost common resources mentioned were

organizations that helped families understandtheir rights under the Individuals with Dis-abilities Education Act (IDEA; n = 12).These resources included parent resource

centers, disability networks and agencies,local interagency groups, and other earlychildhood agencies that assist families of

children with disabilities to find appropriateservices, such as child care resource and

referral agencies and Head Start. In addition,several participants identified community andneighborhood resources that were available tosupport the child’s and family’s participationin general community activities (n = 5),which facilitated the transition process, as

described by this participant:

Community recreation programs have beenvery supportive. We have a therapeutic rec-reation department in our county and the

regular recreation departments are havingChallenger Baseball that helps kids transitioninto kindergarten level services as well be-cause that’s usually the age when you jointeam sports. And if there’s a sport your can

join where you have a buddy, a lot of theChallenge sports, we have tee ball, soccer etcetera, they’re buddy based, where typicallydeveloping kindergartner is paired with the 5year-old who has the disability and they gobase to base together if it’s baseball. These arevery specific examples, but that helps youintegrate into your neighborhood communitywhen you’re going to be a kindergartenstudent next year.

Finally, a few participants mentioned supportgroups (n = 2) that helped families meet otherfamilies who had children with special needsas effective by offering additional supportduring the transition process.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to identify andcategorize strategies from the field that arebelieved to be effective for supportinga child’s and family’s transition from earlyintervention to preschool and from preschoolto kindergarten. Focus group methods wereused to elicit transition strategies based onthe previous experiences and various per-

spectives of administrators, providers, andfamily members of young children with

disabilities. Findings of this study providesupport for a conceptual framework on

transition developed by the National EarlyChildhood Transition Center (NECTC:Rous et al., 2007). Codes and emergingthemes, Critical Interagency Variables and

Transition Practices and Activities, were

consistent with this conceptual framework.This framework provides administrators,providers, and families of young childrenwith disabilities with a nonlinear approach toplanning and implementing critical compo-nents of the transition process and itdelineates key interagency variables and

program practices that are posited to impactthe preparation and adjustment of childrenand families as they move between and

among programs.



15

The findings from this study also providesupport for transition strategies described inearlier work focused on early childhood

special education transitions. Specifically,previous transition literature has documen-ted many examples of critical interagencyvariables and strategies that support an

interagency transition process involving mul-tiple parties, including families and variousagencies (Rous, Hemmeter & Schuster, 1994;Rosenkoetter, Hains, & Fowler, 1994). Find-ings from the present study also are consis-tent with earlier transition work that de-scribed the importance of inter- and intra-agency collaboration (Rice & O’Brien, 1990;Rous, Schuster & Hemmeter, 1999). Consis-tent with the NECTC conceptual framework,participants in the present study identifiedstrategies that emphasized the need fora supportive infrastructure, including guide-lines and policies, personnel dedicated to

transition planning, and clear support fromadministration, which also are described inthe transition literature (Conn-Powers, Ross-Allen, & Holburn, 1990; Hanline, 1993;Rous, Hemmeter & Schuster, 1994; Rous,Schuster & Hemmeter, 1999).

Participants in this study felt that their&dquo;hands were often tied&dquo; in implementingspecific transition activities without direct

support of administrators. Participants notedthat administrative support includes time forcommunication and the development of collab-orative relationships across key players andagencies involved in the transition process.Lack of time for team members to collabo-rate in the transition process previously hasbeen identified as having the potential to

cause conflict during transition planning(Myers, 2007; Rosenkoetter, Whaley, Hains,& Pierce, 2001); whereas, good relationshipsand community partnerships have beenidentified as fundamental to the developmentand implementation of successful transitionpractices (Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 2003). Com-munication and collaboration across pro-

grams and with community partners also wasmentioned by many study participants. Find-ings support the need for on-going contacts,discussion forums, interagency groups, and

cross training (Jang & Mangione, 1994;Rous, Schuster & Hemmeter, 1999; Swan &

Morgan, 1993) which were described as

strategies for promoting continuity and align-ment across programs (Rous, Hemmeter, &

Schuster, 1994; Pianta, Rimm-Kaufman, &

Cox, 1999).Participants identified a number of specific

transition practices and activities that directlysupported children and families through thetransition process. The consistent use of

developmentally appropriate practices acrossprograms, especially for children with dis-

abilities, was seen as associated with positivetransitions. Participants felt that having un-realistic expectations for young children washarmful to the transition process, while

noting that knowing and understandingexpectations in the next environment alsowas important, even when expectations werenot developmentally appropriate. Kraft-

Sayre and Pianta (2000) also promote conti-nuity across programs, including collabora-tions across teachers to familiarize one

another about their classroom practices.Helping children with disabilities and their

families experience successful transitionsacross programs requires careful planningand consideration of an array of transition

practices appropriate for the individual needsof the child, family, school, and community.One of the major service components underthe Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct (IDEA, 2004) for young children withdisabilities and their families is specific plan-ning and support for transition as childrenexit Part C services and enter other programs(e.g., child care, Head Start, preschool specialeducation programs). Participants in the

present study described many strategies theyperceive as helpful in planning and preparingthe child and family for these new settings orservices. These transition strategies are gener-ally aligned with the Division for EarlyChildhood (DEC) recommended practicesfor early intervention and early childhoodspecial education (Sandall, Hemmeter, Smith,& McLean, 2005), including the need for

interagency partnerships, professional and

family partnerships, and a family-centered



16

approach (e.g., provide families with completeinformation to support family decision mak-ing during transitions). Similar findings, suchas the importance of family visitation to thereceiving environment, providing families

with relevant information during the transi-tion planning process, and including familiesin development of the IEP, have also beendescribed in previous research (Hanson et al.,2000; Jewett et al., 1998; Lovett & Haring,2003).

Findings from this investigation offer

implications for personnel preparation andpolicy development and implementation.Personnel preparation at the pre-service andin-service levels should directly prepare

graduates and new practitioners and supportpractitioners in the field to implementtransition strategies that lead to positivechild and family outcomes. Practitionersshould be knowledgeable about transition

processes, including specific roles and re-

sponsibilities associated with sending andreceiving programs. Findings from this studysuggest that earlier work focused on transi-

tion, which was conducted through modeldemonstration and outreach projects, mighthave helped advance transition practices.Participants in the present study identifiedmany transition practices as effective thatwere consistent with the extant literature.

From a policy perspective, the need for

consistent use of effective transition strate-

gies has increased with changes in the federalmonitoring process through the State Perfor-mance Plan (SPP) and Annual PerformanceReport (APR) which require 100% compli-ance for the transition indicators for bothPart C (Indicator 8) and Part B (Indicator12). To meet these goals, policy makers atnational, state, and local levels need to

collaborate to ensure development of policiesthat facilitate consistency across local dis-

tricts and agencies. These local policies alsomust be reflective of recommended practicesin transition, many of which have been

described in the transition literature and

were also identified in this study.Several limitations of the present study

should be considered. First, the identified

transition activities and strategies reflect theperspectives of a limited number of admin-istrators, providers, and families and are

likely influenced by their backgrounds andexperiences. Findings reflect the organizationof participant responses under thematic

categories rather than definitive conclusionsabout effective transition practices. Addi-

tionally, two of the nine focus groups in-cluded in the present study were conductedwith fewer than four participants., whichmight have resulted in less relevant or lessabundant data than the groups with more

participants. Although recommendations forfocus group size vary in the literature,typically researchers recommend groupsshould have between 4 and 10 participants(Kreuger, 1994; Morgan, 1988; Patton,1990).

Second, a limited number of participantsin the focus groups were related services

providers. Thus, findings in the present studyreflect a limited interdisciplinary, team-basedperspective about effective transition prac-tices. Future research should include largersamples of families and professionals that aremore representative in terms of a greatervariety of early intervention, preschool, andkindergarten providers and programs in-

volved in the transition process. Additionalinformation on the perspectives of a broadrange of related services providers (e.g.,nursing, social work) also should be ob-tained. In recent research on therapy pro-viders’ roles in the early childhood transitionprocess, Myers and colleagues described

several barriers to participation, including:lack of support from employers, lack of timefor participation, lack of reimbursement forattending transition meetings, not beinginvited to transition meetings, and uncertain-ty about how to participate (Myers & Effgen,2006; Myers, 2007). In addition, the majorityof study participants (i.e., occupationaltherapists, physical therapists, and speech-language pathologists) reported that theyhad never received any specialized trainingregarding early childhood transitions. In-

creased understanding of the role of relatedservice providers in transition planning might



17

lead to a broader range of strategies to

enhance the potential for successful transi-tions for young children and their familiesand might identify ways to facilitate theirinvolvement in the transition process.

Additional research is needed to investi-

gate outcomes for children with disabilitiesand their families (e.g., child and familyadjustment to the new environment) resultingfrom systematic implementation of theseidentified transition practices and strategies.Future research also should investigatewhether some practices are more effectivethan others in supporting positive transitionoutcomes. Identification of key dimensionsof positive transition outcomes (e.g., child

engagement in the social environment) couldassist administrators and providers in match-ing transition practices that hold the mostpromise for supporting the specific outcomesidentified for individual programs, children,and families.

REFERENCES ’

Boyatzis, C. (1998). A collaborative assignment onthe role of culture in child development andeducation. Teaching of Psychology, 251,195-198.

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmen-tally appropriate practice in early childhoodprograms (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: ERICClearinghouse for Elementary and EarlyChildhood Education. (ERIC Document Re-production Service No. ED403023).

Conn-Powers, M. C., Ross-Allen, J., & Holburn, S.(1990). Transition of young children into theelementary education mainstream. Topics in

Early Childhood Special Education, 9, 91-105.

Chandler, L. K. (1993). Steps in preparing fortransition: Preschool to kindergarten. Teach-ing Exceptional Children, 25(4), 52-55.

Dodge, D. T., Colker, L., & Heroman, C. (2002).The creative curriculum for preschool. Wash-ington, DC: Teaching Strategies.

Hanline, M. F. (1993). Facilitating integratedpreschool service delivery transitions for

children, families, and professionals. In C.A. Peck & S. L. Odom (Eds.), Integratingyoung children with disabilities into communityprograms: Ecological perspectives on researchand implementation (pp. 133-146). Baltimore:Brookes.

Hanson, M. J., Beckman, P. J., Horn, E.,Marquart, J., Sandall, S. R., Greig, D., &Brennan, E. (2000). Entering preschool: Fam-ily and professional experiences in this tran-sition process. Journal of Early Intervention,23, 279-293.

Hemmeter, M. L., & Rous, B. (1997). Teachers’expectations of children’s transition into

kindergarten or ungraded primary programs:A national survey. Unpublished manuscript.

High/Scope (2002). The child observation record.Ypsilanti, MI: Author.

Howell, E. N. (1994, April). Supported transitioninto kindergarten for preschool students withspecial needs. Paper presented at the AnnualInternational Convention of the Council for

Exceptional Children, Denver, CO.

Jang, M., & Mangione, P. L. (1994). Transition

program practices: Improving linkages betweenearly childhood education and early elementaryschool. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearing-house for Elementary and Early ChildhoodEducation. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. 380200)

Jewett, J., Tertell, L., King-Taylor, M., Parker,D., Tertell, L., & Orr, M. (1998). Four earlychildhood teachers reflect on helping childrenwith special needs make the transition to

kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal,98, 329-338.

Johnson, L., Gallagher, R., Cook, M., & Wong, P.(1995). Critical skills for kindergarten: Percep-tions from kindergarten teachers. Journal ofEarly Intervention, 19, 315-327.

Katims, D. S., & Pierce, P. L. (1995). Literacy-richenvironments and the transition of youngchildren with special needs. Topics in EarlyChildhood Special Education, 15, 219-234.

Kraft-Sayre, M. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2000).Enhancing the transition to kindergarten.Charlottesville: University of Virginia, Na-tional Center for Early Development andLearning, Accessed December 5, 2006, from http://discovery.wcgmf.org/resources/sps_resource_363.pdf

Kreuger, R. (1994). Focus groups: A practicalguide for applied research (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalisticinquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lovett, D. L., & Haring, K. A. (2003). Familyperceptions of transitions in early interven-tion. Education and Training in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 38, 370-377.

Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitativeresearch. Newbury Park: Sage.



18

Myers, C. T. (2007). The role of independenttherapy providers in the transition to pre-school. Journal of Early Intervention, 29,173-185.

Myers, C. T., & Effgen, S. K. (2006). Physicaltherapists’ participation in early childhoodtransitions. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 18,182-189.

National Education Goals Panel (1998). Thenational education goals report: Building anation of learners, 1998. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, AccessedDecember 5, 2006 from http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/negp/REPORTS/98RPT.PDF

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation andresearch methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park:Sage.

Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (1999). The changingnature of the transition to school: Trends forthe next decade. In R. C. Pianta & M. J. Cox

(Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 363-380). Baltimore: Brookes,

Pianta, R. C., & Kraft-Sayre, M. E. (2003).Successful kindergarten transition: Your

guide to connecting children, families, andschools. Baltimore: Brookes.

Pianta, R. C., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Cox, M.J. (1999). An ecological approach to concep-tualizing the transition to kindergarten. In R.C. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition tokindergarten (pp. 3-10). Baltimore: Brookes,

Rice, M. L., & O’Brien, M. (1990). Transitions:Times of change and accommodation. Topicsin Early Childhood Special Education, 9, 1-14.

Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (1998). Commen-tary: The transition to school opportunitiesand challenges for children, families, educa-tors, and communities. Elementary School

Journal, 98(4), 293-295.

Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (1999). Beginningschool for children at risk. In R. C. Pianta &M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergar-ten (pp. 217-251). Baltimore: Brookes,

Richards, T. J., & Richards, L. (1994). Usingcomputers in qualitative research. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook ofqualitative research (pp. 445-462). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage,

Rosenkoetter, S. E., Hains, A. H., & Fowler, S. A.(1994). Bridging early services for childrenwith special needs and their families: A

practical guide for transition planning. Balti-more: Brookes.

Rous, B., Hallam, R., Harbin, G., McCormick,K., & Jung, L. A. (2006). The research base.In B. Rous & R. Hallam (Eds.), Tools for

transition in early childhood: A step-by-stepguide for agencies, teachers, and families (pp.13-23). Baltimore: Brookes,

Rous, B., Hallam, R., Harbin, G., McCormick,K., & Jung, L. A. (2007). The transition

process for young children with disabilities: A

conceptual framework. Infants and YoungChildren, 20, 135-148.

Rous, B., Hemmeter, M. L., & Schuster, J. (1994).Sequenced transition to education in the

public schools: A systems approach to tran-sition planning. Topics in Early Childhood

Special Education, 14, 374-393.

Rous, B., Hemmeter, M. L., & Schuster, J. (1999).Evaluating the impact of the STEPS model ondevelopment of community-wide transition sys-tems. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 38-50.

Rule, S., Fiechtl, B., & Innocenti, M. (1990).Preparation for transition to mainstreamed

post-preschool environments: Development ofa survival skills curriculum. Topics in EarlyChildhood Special Education, 9, 78-90.

Salisbury, C. L., & Vincent, L. J. (1990). Criterionof the next environment and best practices:Mainstreaming and integration 10 years later.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,10, 78-90.

Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M. L., Smith, B. &McLean, M. (Eds.). (2005). DEC recommendedpractices: A comprehensive guide for practicalapplication. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theorymethodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualita-tive research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Swan, W. W., & Morgan, J. L. (1993). Collaborat-ing for comprehensive services for youngchildren and their families: The local interagen-cy coordinating council. Baltimore: Brookes.

The study reported in this paper was conducted bythe National Early Childhood Transition Center

(NECTC), which is funded by the U. S. Departmentof Education, Office of Special Education Pro-

grams, Cooperative Agreement # H324V020031.The contents do not necessarily represent the

positions or policies of the U. S. Department ofEducation, Office of Special Education Programs,and you should not assume endorsement by theFederal government.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Beth Rous, University of Kentucky,126 Mineral Industries Building, Lexington, KY40506-0051. E-mail: [email protected]



strategies for supporting transitions of young children with special needs and their families

Documents