Louisiana Postsecondary Education for All Collaborative (PEAC) An estimated 2,136,600 individuals with intellectual disabilities (IWID) between the ages of 2164 live in the United States. Of those, an estimated 81% are unemployed (Zaft, 2004).There is a growing body of literature suggesting that post-secondary programs for IWID may lead to enhanced quality of life outcomes. For example, initial research indicates a positive correlation between participating in post-secondary education and obtaining employment among individuals with intellectual disabilities (IWID). In recent years Federal law has established increasing access to post-secondary programs as a priority for addressing the needs of IWID in the United States. For example, the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA, 2008) provides funding to establish model demonstration post-secondary programs for IWID across the country. Think College maintains a national database of post-secondary programs that target IWID. Without considering quality of programs or outcomes, the Think College database currently identifies only 118 postsecondary programs for IWID located in 34 states (Think College, 2009). While this represents a start, it is clear that much needs to be done to provide widespread national access to IWID to post-secondary programs. Less than one-third of Louisiana students with ID who exited public school in 2008 obtained a high school diploma. The Annual Disability Status report maintained by Cornell University estimates the percent of non-institutionalized IWID ages 21-64 in Louisiana with less than a high school education is third worst in the country and at the same time, unemployment rates among this population have been estimated to be as high as 87% (University, 2010). Currently there are no inclusive postsecondary options for IWID in Louisiana. In fact, for many IWID living in this state, access to and participation in community living settings and activities after high

school appear greatly unavailable or underutilized. Once these students age out, drop out, or finish with a Certificate of Achievment, few go on to improve their educational status. Dropping out or aging out of high school without completing a program directly impacts employment rates as well. For example, less than 13% of all individuals ages 16-20 in the state of Louisiana with an intellectual disability with less than a high school diploma are estimated to be employed. If our youth with ID are not in school and not employed in the community; where are they and what are they doing? One possibility is that they are enrolled in state programs designed to assist IWID to obtain and maintain employment such as those services provided by agencies like Louisiana Rehabilitation Services (LRS) or the state MR/DD agency (Office for Citizens with Developmental Disabilities- OCDD). However, statistics from those agencies are alarming. In 2007, Louisiana’s rehabilitation rate for IWID was 42%, falling well short of the national average of 60% (University, 2010). Additionally, in 2007, OCDD reported that nearly 2/3 of the IWID they served received their services in segregated, non-work environments. No reliable statistics are available to document the living arrangements of Louisianans with ID in the years immediately following their exit from public schools. However, data in the National Longitudinal Transition Study (Education, 2012) suggest that the majority of these youth reside with their families for an extended period of time after leaving high school suggests that few 18-21year-old IWID are systematically taught or supported to identify their residential preferences, let alone to pursue living arrangements of their choosing. One may surmise from these findings that when IWID in Louisiana leave high school, they are not adequately prepared to fully participate in the community as adults. Models for providing postsecondary experiences for 18-21 year old IWID on college/community college campuses may result in better quality of life outcomes for Louisianans with ID.

Rationale for Developing an Inclusive Model for Transition to Postsecondary Education According to a recent report developed by the AUCD (A. Anthony Antosh, 2013): Postsecondary education and training is a factor that impacts successful career outcomes and employment rates. Yulin and Trupin (2003) observed that persons with disabilities experience greater returns from increased levels of education than their non-disabled counterparts. For example, graduates with disabilities who went on to receive some level of post-graduate training were more than two-and-ahalf times as likely to be employed, whereas graduates without disabilities who received some level of post-graduate training were only one-and-a-half-times as likely to be employed. Successful transition from secondary school is becoming a chief indicator of the effectiveness of school in preparing youth for college and career readiness (Baer et al., 2003; Kochhar- Bryant, Bassett, & Webb, 2009) and skills related to choice making, problem solving, decision-making, self-regulation, and self-advocacy and leadership (Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003). Employment outcomes for individuals who participate in PSE have been shown to be much higher than for those who do not participate in PSE. PSE participation has been linked with better jobs, increased interest to improve one’s employment situation, higher wages and better benefits packages, and better quality of life (Clark & Unruh; 2009; Jesien, 2009; Migliore, Butterworth, & Hart, 2009). These outcomes are true of individuals with and without IDD. However, youth with IDD have been shown to participate in PSE at far lower rates than youth without disabilities (Grigal, Hart, & Paiewonsky, 2010; Migliore & Butterworth, 2009; National Post-School Outcomes Center, 2006). Establishing a postsecondary program modeled after the Inclusive Individualized Support (IIS) model is a way to directly increase options for IWID by providing access to settings and activities that are currently not available to them. By including concurrent enrollment of IWID (i.e., enrolled in LEA and IHE) resources of both institutions are maximized and responsibility for and ownership of participants by

both institutions promotes commitment to quality outcomes and sustainability. All participating IWID w take courses on campus which lead to a credential- typically a Technical Certificate of Achievement (TCA)- that relates to a work or career interest that they will self-identify through Person Centered Planning (PCP). Including 18-21 year old IWID in settings that are populated, in part, by their age-similar typical peers affords them opportunities to learn, practice and refine interests and skills that relate directly to living and participating in the community both immediately, and in their later adult life (e.g., employment, social, leisure) (A. Anthony Antosh, 2013).

PEAC Project Model Initially, the PEAC project targeted four school districts to participate. These districts were the Recovery School District (RSD), St. Tammany, St. Charles, and Plaquemines. There remain ten institutions of higher education (IHE) within this area and none are providing services for IWID that were not admitted using traditional criteria. Additionally, the aftermath of hurricane Katrina was devastating to LEA and IHE in the region. In the years since, services and supports for students with intellectual disabilities have been rebuilt gradually. Establishing a model postsecondary program linking LEA and IHE has been a paramount concern for the PEAC project in order to promote sustainable access to postsecondary education for IWID. As model postsecondary program in the New Orleans area PEAC has had measurable success and has faced several challenges that have caused the project to adapt and adjust its model. In the first year of the project, PEAC was able to recruit and support two students with intellectual disabilities from the Recovery School District. However, two significant challenges soon arose on the district level when PEAC sought to recruit new participants. First, LEA in the other partner districts realized that transportation of students to the IHE where the project is housed- Delgado

Community College (DCC) was going to be an obstacle. As part of PEACs mission, we identify public forms of transportation used by typical individuals with and without disabilities and teach our participants how to use them. This practice was and is successful for students attending LEA in the local parishes of Orleans and Jefferson. However it proved to be a serious burden to the other districts involved because no readily available and reasonable public transportation systems were in place. The second significant challenge was that the Recovery School District (RSD) began a systematic process of turning control of its LEA back to the Orleans Parish Public School system as well as to a variety of charter school institutions and systems. The effect of these challenges was that recruiting and supporting students became difficult and required the project to adjust its initial model. In the case of the first challenge, PEAC had to work with district partners to identify additional means of transportation. In the case of the second challenge, it had to refocus recruitment efforts from a district level, in the RSD, to Orleans Parish Public Schools as well as individual charter school and charter network schools. These challenges and the resulting adjustments to the PEAC model are mentioned because they have directly impacted the original timeframe PEAC envisioned for recruitment and the number and relationships we have with partners. The result of the adjustments we have made to our model has directly affected our original model for collecting and reporting student data. The following table shows the original model PEAC purposed for recruiting participants from our district partners:

LEA Delgado Campus

Year of Grant Year 1 Year 2 City Park City Park

Year 3 City Park

Year 4 City Park

Year 5 City Park

Westbank

Westbank

RSD

2

4

6

6

6

St. Tammany

0

2

4

6

6

St. Charles

0

0

2

4

6

Plaquemines

0

0

0

2

4

TOTAL

2

6

12

18

22

Table Summary of how LEAs and Students will enroll in the project PEAC was to recruit 2 students in the spring of each year to begin the following fall semester adding an additional two students from an additional district each year. Due to the challenges discussed earlier our strategy for recruitment has significantly changed. The table that follows shows the changes in partners and the number of students entering Delgado Community College. LEA

Year of Grant Year 1 Year 2 City Park City Park

Delgado

Year 3 City Park

Year 4 City Park

Year 5 City Park Westbank 0

Campus RSD

0

2

1-continues

Westbank 1-continues

St. Tammany

0

2

0-new,

0-new

0

2- new

To

3- total

determine

4-new

To

6- total

determined

1-new

To be determined

2 continue New Orleans Sci 0

0

1

Academy Charter Landry-

Walker 0

Algiers

Charter

0

2

be

be

High School Orleans Parish Public Schools Edna Karr High

School TOTAL

0

2

6

11

To

be

determined Table Summary of how LEAs and Students have enrolled in the project The challenge of adding new partners as the project adjusted also caused PEAC to recruit students year round and have them enter whichever semester follows their initial recruitment. The transition from the original model took some time and has caused us to recruit new partners and participants year round. Although PEAC has made adjustments in the districts and LEA we are partnering with and in our recruitment timeline, our intervention model for our students has remained close to how it was planned. Rationale and Summary of PEAC Intervention Expectations for IWID are radically different than they were thirty years ago. Now IWID and their families expect to participate in inclusive school, work, and community settings as students and as adults. College campuses provide opportunities to design individualized education programs that target and address adult-oriented goals and outcomes in settings that include similar-aged, typical peers. College campuses provide numerous chances for IWID to identify and hone their interests and preferences as well as to acquire and/or enhance skills related to employment and career goals, leisure/recreation pastimes, social/interpersonal abilities, community living, and general community participation. Participating students with ID have the full array of services and supports afforded them under IDEA from their LEA and in addition receive services and supports on campus via interagency collaborative partners. The on-campus components will include natural and arranged supports from course instructors, typical peers, co-workers and mentors.

It is generally recognized that the advocacy of parents was largely responsible for Federal legislation that established the rights of IWID to receive free and appropriate public education and to be educated in the least restrictive environment with their typical peers to the greatest extent possible. History has repeated itself as parents have once again pushed the boundaries for their children with disabilities. On August 14, 2008 Congress affirmed the rights of IWID to access post-secondary environments when it reauthorized (HEOA, 2008). This law increases opportunities for IWID to experience post-secondary environments by making them eligible for financial aid including Pell Grants and work study programs, establishing a national coordinating center to provide resources and technical assistance to programs and funding model demonstration programs around the United States. Additionally, HEOA provides clear definitions of ID, UDL, comprehensive transition and postsecondary programs, and explains waivers that can be employed at IHEs. The changes in HEOA represent a true victory for IWID and their families who have long sought equal funding and access to postsecondary options. Research indicates that a college experience to be the most desired outcome of parents of students with disabilities-regardless of the severity or type of disability. Parents increasingly are requesting that school systems provide transition services in appropriate settings (e.g., community colleges, natural work settings, community settings) frequented by other peers ages 18-21. Self-advocates, family organizations, and disability advocates across the nation have partnered with high school and postsecondary programs to create innovative options designed to meet transition needs for IWID (Butterworth, 2008). A review of literature on the efficacy of existing post-secondary programs for youth with disabilities revealed that most postsecondary programs reviewed targeted individuals diagnosed with LD, ADD/ADHD, sensory or mobility disabilities (Think College, 2009). The majority of

these programs were designed for students pursuing or who had graduated from high school with a regular diploma. Most of the programs reviewed required students to be admitted to these programs through the regular college admissions process. Almost no programs reported in this review were specifically designed for IWID. Since that time, the number of postsecondary programs for IWID who do not have regular diplomas has increased. In 2004, OSEP funded the Postsecondary Education Research Center (PERC) and the College Career Connection (C3) to research effective practices used in selected postsecondary settings for IWID. PERC worked with five program sites on college campuses to include community and four-year college campuses. PERC collected exit and follow-up data on 75 dually enrolled students to determine the impact of these programs on student outcomes. Overall results from this study are pending but should be available soon. However, findings from subsets of the PERC data have been reported. For example, following the use of the PERC program evaluation tool at Western Connection Program at Western Connecticut State University, the university identified employment as an area of needed improvement for IWID participating in the program. After creating action steps around the target of employment, students obtaining paid employment positions went from 0% to 90% in one school year (A. Anthony Antosh, 2013). A study of the five-dual enrollment programs affiliated with the PERC project showed that of the 42 supported students with ID, 74% had taken a college class and 94% were employed making an average of $7.86 an hour and working an average of 15.5 hours per week (University, 2010). These results demonstrate a profound impact of postsecondary programs on outcomes for IWID. Another study reported a positive correlation between participating in postsecondary education and gaining competitive or independent employment (University, 2010). Other studies have shown linkages between participation in post-secondary programs and obtaining paid

employment. For example, one study found 70% of the participating students with ID/DD who graduated from inclusive postsecondary education achieved full- or part-time employment while another researcher analyzed the experiences of four students with and without disabilities attending community college and found all four reported a positive impact on their interpersonal relationships through their activities and enrollment in the community college (Education, 2012). The current data supports postsecondary education for IWID as a way to increase adult outcomes. The literature identifies three basic models for providing post-secondary programs for students who need more intensive supports, including: (a) Mixed/Hybrid, (b) Substantially Separate, and (c) Inclusive Individualized Support. In brief, the Mixed/Hybrid model involves a mix of academic classes specifically designed for students with disabilities as well as selections of inclusive coursework. Specially designed coursework on transition issues or life skills also may be offered. Mixed/Hybrid programs usually offer a central “base” for students to meet with staff and each other. Social opportunities may be inclusive or non-inclusive. Employment opportunities are a part of the Mixed/Hybrid model. The Substantially Separate model consists of classes designed only for students with disabilities. Students may be on campus for their coursework but no inclusive coursework is involved in this model. Students may participate with non-disabled students in social activities. Employment opportunities are a part of the Substantially Separate model. Finally, the Inclusive Individualized Support (IIS) model is fully integrated into the existing college structure. Students access typical college courses based on their individualized needs. Supports based on student need are provided to the student and may include educational coaching, identifying natural supports, tutoring and technology. There is no “base” on campus;

students are fully integrated into the campus. Students’ identified career goals shape the course of study and school experiences. There are five elements for establishing a postsecondary program for IWID using the IIS model, including: (a) create student vision and goals, (b) develop flexible services and supports, (c) assist students to access college and employment, (d) implement ongoing services and support, and (e) evaluate outcomes (Education, 2012). Summary of Results Student progress data in will be presented in four areas: (a) student progress in college curriculum with supports provided by the college according to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as measured by assessments developed by college faculty, (b) student progress in college curriculum with additional supports aligned with the provisions of IDEA as measured by modified assessments developed by the PEAC staff in collaboration with the college faculty, (c) student progress towards individual goals and objectives outlined in their Individualized Educational Program (IEP) and measured by assessments supported by current research and implemented by PEAC staff., (d) students evaluations, interviews and testimony. Student progress in the college curriculum with only ADA supports is measured using mid-term exams and final exams designed by instructors and approved by either department chairs or department committees. In each of these assessments PEAC students only receive ADA accommodations. For PEAC students these accommodations typically include: extended time for completion, having the test individually administered in the Delgado testing center, having tests read aloud and, in some cases, transferred answers. At Delgado Community College all academic courses taken for credit are required to use mid-term and final exams.

The following table shows the academic courses for credit taken by each PEAC student and the grades they received on the mid-term and final examinations. It should be noted that some students to courses for audit and so were not required to take examinations. Student 1 Course Horticulture 101- General Horticulture Fitness I Horticulture 111- Plant Materials Horticulture 110- Introduction to Soils Fitness II

Mid-Term Exam D

Final Exam Grade D

B A

B A

F

F

C

C

Student 2 Course MUSC 113- Beginning Piano ADOT 105- Computer Applications ESLN 003- Basic Reading ADOT 101- Keyboarding ADOT II- Keyboarding II ESLN 105- Basic Conversation ADOT 105- Computer Applications ADOT 265- Spreadsheet Applications ESLN 015- Intermediate Conversation I

Mid-Term Exam F C

Final Exam F D

A A C A

A A C A

C

C

D

D

D

D

Student 3 Course ADOT 105- Survey of Computer Application ADOT 172- Spelling & Word Concepts CCSS 107- College Success

Mid-Term Exam D

Final Exam D

C

C

C

C

Skills ADOT 106- Word Processing

C

C

Student 4 Course CSS 107- College Success Skills PAST 101-Introduction to Baking and Pastry HESC 102-First Aid

Mid-Term Exam C

Final Exam C

B

B

A

A

Student 5 Course CCSS 107- College Success Skills MOVH 101- Introduction to Motor Vehicle Technology

Mid-Term Exam C

Final Exam C

B

B

SUMMARY OF RESULTS A 10 .22

B 6 .13

C 17 .38

D 8 .17

F 4 .08

As the results indicate, participants in the PEAC program had scores that are fairly evenly distributed and seem to demonstrate adequate progress in the college curriculum as measured by assessments in which they engaged using only ADA supports.

The second method PEAC used to track participants academic performance was to record their score on assessments on which PEAC staff were able to collaborate with Delgado instructors on adapting, modifying and providing supports. The adaptations, modifications and supports provided to PEAC participants were individualized according to the strengths,

preferences and support needs identified in the Individualized Education Programs (IEP). The assessments that DCC instructors collaborated with PEAC staff on four types of informal assessments that can generally be categorized as: homework, projects, research papers and presentations. The accommodations and modification that PEAC students received consisted of staff made outlines of content for report development, use of narrated PowerPoints for presentations, use of picture prompts (including flash cards) for homework review and use of photographs and videos for presentations and projects. The individualized supports that students received came from three primary sources: academic peer tutors, social peer mentors and direct instruction from PEAC staff. The following table shows the outcomes of these IDEA individualized supports across the four identified informal assessment areas. PEAC STUDENT PROGRESS IN COLLEGE CURRICULUM WITH IDEA SUPPORTS Year 2-Fall 2011-Summer 2012 Student 001 002

Homework 100 75

Projects 70 78

Research Papers 70 85

Presentations N/A 90

Year 3-Fall 2012-Summer 2013 Student 001 002 003 004 005

Homework 85 80 80 100 100

Projects 90 86 70 91 83

Research Papers 70 78 75 90 83

Presentations N/A 85 71 60 84

SUMMARY OF RESULTS Students 5

Homework 88.6%

Projects 81.1%

Research Papers 79.1%

Presentations 78%

As the table indicates, with the support of the PEAC staff and mentors in ensuring that accommodations afforded under IDEA and aligned with the strengths and supports identified in participants IEP were provided students in the PEAC program were quite successful. Participants averaged high ‘B’ in homework, a low ‘B’ on projects, a high ‘C’ on research papers and presentations. An overall understanding of the academic progress of PEAC students with both ADA and IDEA supports since the beginning of the project can be gained by examining the students’ cumulative grade point averages. As the table below demonstrates the mean score of cumulative grade point averages for all PEAC participants since the beginning of the program is a 2.3106 or roughly a low C average. The fact that these PEAC participants have been fully included in academic classes with their typical peers for the first time and their grades were attainted in their first 4 semesters of college speaks to the determination and capabilities of these individuals with intellectual disabilities and to the effectiveness and appropriateness of the PEAC model.

PEAC STUDENT PROGRESS IN COLLEGE CURRICULUM WITH ADA and IDEA SUPPORTS Year 2- Fall 2011-Summer 2012 Student 001 002

Attempted Hours 20.00 25.00

Passed Hours 8.00 11.00

Earned Hours 8.00 11.00

GPA Hours 8.00 13.00

Quality Points 22.00 44.00

GPA

Quality Points 24.00 90.00 15.00 31.00 15.00

GPA

2.750 3.384

Year 3- Fall 2012-Summer2013 Student 001 002 003 004 005

Attempted Hours 29.00 45.00 10.00 10.00 6.00

Passed Hours 9.00 31.00 9.00 10.00 6.00

Earned Hours 9.00 31.00 9.00 10.00 6.00

GPA Hours 11.00 33.00 10.00 10.00 6.00

2.181 2.727 1.500 3.100 2.500

The third progress measure the PEAC program uses is the students’ Individualized Education Plan (IEP). PEAC participants are concurrently enrolled in Delgado Community College and their respective Local Education Agencies. This enables the LEA to continue to draw down federal IDEA funding for the students and ergo fund their attendance in college. As part of this process the school must maintain an IEP for the student. PEAC must keep track of the student’s annual progress and report on it to the LEA. It is difficult to examine IEP data cumulatively for two reasons; each plan is written to address the strengths and supports of an individual student and LEA tend to have tracking and reporting systems that are not identical. In addition to these factors, the IEP goals and objectives for a student are usually modified or changed from year to year. However, PEAC does keep track of and report students’ progress towards their IEP goals and objectives and it is somewhat telling to examine the number and types of goals and objectives students have been able to address while in the PEAC program. Although the following table does not demonstrate individual progress for PEAC students it does show the projects ability to ensure that these needs are being met by the PEAC program.

PEAC STUDENT PROGRESS TOWARDS IEP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES STUDENT 001 Educational Need Area Academic/Cognitive Communication Self Helpemployment `Self Helpcommunity Self Helpindependent living

Objective(s) 2 2 3

Working Achieved towards ½ 1/2 1 2/2 0/2 3/3 0/3

Goal(s) 1 1

Working Achieved Towards 1/1 0 1/1 0 1/1 0

3

1/3

2/3

1

1/1

0

3

2/3

1/3

1

1/1

0

STUDENT 002 Educational Need Area Academic/Cognitivemath Self-help-Placement Social Academic/Cognitivevocational Self Help- vocational

Objective(s) 2

Working Achieved towards ½ 1/2

Goal(s) 1

Working Achieved Towards 1/1 0

5 3 4

2/5 2/3 ¾

3/5 1/3 1/4

1 1 1

1/1 1/1 1/1

0 0 0

4

¾

1/3

1

1/1

0

STUDENT 003 Educational Need Area Academic/Cognitiveword processing Communication Self Help- leisure Self Helpindependent living Social-vocational Socialcommunication

Objective(s) 4

Working Achieved towards 4/4 1/4

Goal(s) 1

Working Achieved Towards 1/1 0

3 3 4

3/3 3/3 3/4

0/3 1/4

1 1

1/1 1/1

0 0

5 4

3/5 2/4

2/5 2/4

1 1

1/1 1/1

0 0

STUDENT 004 Educational Need Area Academic/CognitiveMath Academic/CognitiveELA Self Help- transition

Objective(s) 4

Working Achieved towards 2/4 2/4

Goal(s) 1

Working Achieved Towards 1/1 0

3

1/3

2/3

1

1/1

0

4

3/4

1/4

1

1/1

0

STUDENT 005 Educational Need Area Academic/Cognitive Self Helpindependent living Social Communication-

Objective(s) 2 2 1 1

Working Achieved towards 2/2 0/2 1/2 1/2 1/1 1/1

0/2 0/1

Goal(s) 1 1 1 1

Working Achieved Towards 1/1 0 1/1 0 1/1 1/1

0 0

STUDENT 006 Educational Need Area Academic/Cognitivereading Academic/Cognitivemath Communicationlanguage

Objective(s) 2

Working Achieved towards 2/2 0/2

Goal(s) 1

Working Achieved Towards 1/1 0

2/2

2/2

0/2

1

1/1

0

3/3

3/3

0/3

1

1/1

0

STUDENT 007 Educational Need Area Academic/Cognitivemath Academic/CognitiveELA Social

Objective(s) 2

Working Achieved towards 2/2 0/2

Goal(s) 1

Working Achieved Towards 1/1 0/2

2

2/2

0/2

1

1/1

0

2

2/2

0/2

1

1/1

0

These tables do not show overall growth as measured by annual goals achieved. However, they to show that students with intellectual disabilities have been able to address their individual goals and objectives while attending a fully inclusive college educational program. The tables also demonstrate that the PEAC project is able to ensure that the students individual strengths and support needs are being addressed while they are in the program and that their LEA remain in compliance with federal IDEA requirements. In examining the results of the first three measures of student progress: academic with ADA supports, academic with IDEA supports and IEP progress the PEAC project feels confident that its current model for student supports is effective. There is however, one final measure that we used. This measure was not to record PEAC participant progress but, rather, to capture the participants satisfaction with the PEAC project and their experience at Delgado Community College thus far. The questionnaire we used for the students was developed by the PEAC staff in

a threefold process. First, they reviewed student satisfaction evaluations from a variety of other college programs. Second they reviewed the questionnaire that Delgado Community College administers to its own students to measure their satisfaction with a particular course. Third, they took into consideration the strengths and current skill sets of the students when designing the questions and response options. PEAC’s aim in the developing the questionnaire was to capture hones feedback from the participants. The questionnaire was designed in such a way that our staff had no way of knowing which student filled out which survey and it was administered (read aloud), out of the staff’s presence, by a third party that was not familiar with our students nor the PEAC program. The following is a list a list of the questions, possible responses and a summary the student responses.

PEAC Survey and Student Responses 1. How would you rate the overall value of the PEAC program? a. Excellent 4

b. Good

c. Fair

d. Poor

1

2. How well do feel PEAC supports you with your coursework? a. Excellent

b. Good

c. Fair 3

d. Poor 2

3. How do you feel about your place in Delgado student life? a. Excellent 2

b. Good

c. Fair 3

d. Poor

4. How satisfied are you with your independence since starting Delgado? a. Highly satisfied

b. Satisfied

1

c. Somewhat satisfied

3

d. Not satisfied 1

5. How satisfied are you working with peer mentors? a. Highly satisfied

b. Satisfied 1

c. Somewhat satisfied 4

d. Not satisfied

6. How satisfied are you with campus activities and events at Delgado? a. Highly satisfied

b. Satisfied

1

c. Somewhat satisfied

d. Not satisfied

4

7. How confident do you feel about taking tests? a. Highly confident

b. Confident

1

c. Somewhat confident

2

d. Not confident 2

8. How satisfied with PEAC supporting your goals and interests? a. Highly satisfied

b. Satisfied

2

2

c. Somewhat satisfied 1

d. Not satisfied

c. Somewhat interested 1

d. Not interested

9. How interested are you in the classroom? a. Highly interested

b. interested

2

2

10. Would you recommend the PEAC program to others? a. Highly likely 3

b. Likely 2

c. Somewhat likely 1

d. Not likely

Overall PEAC participants seem to engaged in the college experience at Delgado and seem fairly satisfied with the supports provided by the PEAC project. It seems that they are still intimated by their coursework, but that may have to do with the fact that they have never been fully included in ‘regular’ academic courses and they are still new to the college experience in general. Also it seems that the peer supports, identified and trained by PEAC staff, could be more effective. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS The measures presented in this year four summary indicate that the PEAC program has been able to support students with intellectual disabilities in engaging in college level coursework in an inclusive setting. The measures have shown that PEAC students can successfully complete formal course assessments with ADA supports and that they can engage in more informal assessments successfully with individualized supports provided by PEAC staff and mentors. These measures have further indicated that PEAC participants have been able to continue to address the goals and objectives of their individual education plans and that the PEAC staff has been able to measure their individual progress and report it to their respective LEA to ensure compliance with state and federal IDEA requirements. Finally, these measures have helped to gauge not only the academic progress of PEAC participants, but their perspective of the PEAC program and the beginning of their college experience. As the PEAC project enters its final two years it faces several challenges. The project must continue to find new ways to partner with districts and individual LEA in order to recruit more participants. It must identify and pursue strategies to ensure that the

project can continue to grow and be replicated in other colleges throughout the state. This will require working with our partners to identify resource that will sustain the project beyond the life of the grant. Finally, PEAC must develop and implement assessment tools that will identify and describe successful strategies in which the project has engaged or developed so that other institutions of higher education and local education agencies can replicate the success that the PEAC project has had and avoid some the challenges and obstacles which we have and will face.

Postsecondary Education for All Collaborative Year 4 Update Presented by Richard Hall Louisiana State University Health Science Center– New Orleans, Human Development Center New Orleans, LA

Paper presented November 7, 2013 at the annual meeting of Mid-South Educational Research Association, Pensacola, FL

Works Cited (2009). Retrieved from Think College: http//www.thinkcollege.net A. Anthony Antosh, E. P. (2013). A collaborative interagency, interdisciplinary approach to transition from adolescence to adulthood. Silver Spring, MD: Association of University Centers on Disability. Butterworth, J. S. (2008). State Data: The national report on employment servicesand outcomes. Boston, MA: Institute for Community Inclusion. Education, U. D. (2012). National Longitudinal Transition Study. HEOA. (2008). Higher Education Opportunity Act. University, C. (2010, July 7). Educational Attainments. Retrieved 8 23, 2013, from www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/disabilitystatistics/reports/acs.cfm?statistic=9 Zaft, C. H. (2004). College career connection: A study of youth with intellectual disabilities and the impact of postsecondary education. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 45-54.