IDEA 2004 emphasizes the need for planning for real life outcomes after public school. While transition planning has for many years been a part of the law, this new emphasis is welcome and long overdue. The transition parts of the law are not just in the narrow section of the law which talks about THE transition plan. From the purposes section and throughout the new law the emphasis is on functional goals and concrete steps to achieve post high school outcomes. This new emphasis in the law has caused me to rethink my view of the IEP itself.
I used to view transition as a discrete plan that was attached to the IEP about the time the child turned 14 1/2 years of age. My new thinking is that the entire IEP from three years of age on needs to be viewed as one overarching transition plan. All goals, services, placements, accommodations, technology planning and positive behavioral interventions need to be viewed and geared towards the long term plan for the child. While 16 is the current legally mandated age for the more traditional "transition plan" [the thing that is tacked on the end of the IEP and is all too often ignored and underwritten], I am talking about a different conception of transition planning.
For instance I was at an IEP for a young child who has fine motor issues. We were writing goals for fasteners and zippers. On the surface this goal has nothing to do with transition. On the otherhand, if the child never learns to zip his pants or deal with clothes fasteners that will have a direct bearing on his long term ability to be independent or more fully independent. The zipper issue is even more critical from a transition point of view; one of my longstanding concerns that I have for my clients is the risk of sexual abuse. A person who can handle his dressing needs and his toileting needs stands a much lesser chance of being sexually abused. It also has a direct bearing on the person’s long term quality of life, their employability and potential outcomes. I have had schools say that dressing and toileting are not part of their responsibility which is clearly wrong, especially in view of the embedded transition mandate of IDEA 2004.
In writing social and behavioral goals long term outcomes should be a guiding principle. Social goals should be written with the express perspective of the skill set that will enable a child to function in a work setting, living environment and for post high school learning. Behaviors which will get a person fired or ostracized from a group situation whether work, school or living must be identified and worked on from the earliest years forward.
The IEP team needs to consciously ask the question–what does this child need to succeed in life ? This should be THE guiding concept that drives the IEP process. Asking this question at every meeting that goals are being written, behavioral interventions discussed, technologies being considered and services being allocated is critically important. IEPs are not meant to be documents that are suitable for framing; they are supposed to be relevant documents that lead to meaningful outcomes. The sooner transition is permeated into every aspect of your child’s IEP, the better his or her IEP will be. FAPE should be measured against the degree to which the IEP as written and as implemented achieves outcomes contemplated in IDEA 2004. It remains to be seen how courts and hearing officers will enforce this central tenet of the new law.