Focus on Practice: Parent and Teacher Perceptions of Individualised Transition Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the results from a pilot study of individualised transition planning (from school to adulthood) for students with learning disabilities in Québec, Canada, an area in which there is currently no requirement to undertake individual transition planning. The authors, Georgette Goupil, of the Université du Québec à Montréal, Marc J. Tassé, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Nathalie Garcin, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario and Catherine Doré, of the Université du Québec à Montréal, discuss the content of the plans; the process of preparing them; and the perceptions of parents and school personnel who participated in the study. The results, based on the preparation of 21 individualised transition plans (ITP), indicate that while students had limited participation in their own ITP, parents were pleased with the ITP process. Parents, however, reported several concerns about their child’s transition towards the assumption of adult roles and responsibilities. Analyses of the ITP objectives revealed that few ITP objectives focused on work and leisure skills. Parents and school personnel reported having little knowledge of community options available for the students with respect to residential settings. Finally, parents acknowledged that they had little knowledge and understanding of potential employers’ expectations in relation to work for adults with disabilities. These results are discussed with respect to factors that may facilitate the transition from school to adulthood for students with learning disabilities and will provide interesting points of comparison for those involved in transition planning in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. In order to support these comparisons, the authors have used the term ‘learning disabilities’ throughout this article to describe those students who would be identified in the United States as having ‘mental retardation’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".