The transition IEP should be outcome oriented.^[1] This means that the coordinated set of transition activities developed by the IEP team should include goals that prepare your child for as independent a life as possible. For example, the outcome for a student might be employment in a retail store. The services for that student should focus on seeking and maintaining a position with the necessary supports, solidifying basic work habits, punctuality and grooming, and developing supported and/or independent living skills. 

Transition services include: instruction, related services, community experience, the development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and if appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and provision of functional vocational evaluation.^[2]

The district must conduct appropriate assessments in the above areas to determine your child’s transition needs and the services that address those needs. The assessment process should be followed as it would be for any other area of need in the IEP process.^[3] See Chapter 2, Information on Evaluations/Assessments. 

In addition, the district must also consider student and parent/guardian/other education rights holder input in developing the ITP. Students do not need to fit into a set, one-size-fits-all program option. Rather, it is important to plan creatively and to focus on your child’s individual abilities, needs, interests and post-secondary school goals.

One federal court found that a transition plan was not sufficient where it provided only for the vocational needs of the student, but failed, among other things, to develop a plan to help the student “survive an adult life.” The court noted that the school: 

1. Did not identify any goals for the student after he left school; 
2. Did not perform any transition evaluations, other than a vocational evaluation; 
3. Did not provide “the full panoply of services that transition planning envisions” to prepare him for life outside of school in such areas as personal needs, getting around the community and recreation; and 
4. Failed to meet his individual, unique needs and instead placed him in an existing generic program with minor adaptations. 

[East Penn Sch. Dist. v. Scott B., No. Civ. A. 97-1989, 1999 WL 178363, at *5-6 & n.8 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 1999).] In another case, a hearing officer found a clear failure on the part of the district to provide appropriate transition services when the IEP contained only two informal activities (the student was to investigate college catalogs and write to colleges for more information). The hearing officer concluded that such a transition plan could not have been based on the student’s individual needs because the student tested significantly below grade level in all areas and would need far more extensive services than simply being told to investigate colleges on her own.^[4]

1. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(34); 34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.43(a); Cal. Ed. Code Sec. 56345.1.[↩]
2. 34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.43; Cal. Ed. Code Sec. 56345.1(b).[↩]
3. See 34 C.F.R. Secs. 300.301, 300.304(b); Cal. Ed. Code Sec. 56320(f).[↩]
4. Student v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., Case No. SN 476-98, 20 IDELR 153 (Aug. 17, 1998).[↩]