E-mail this page
Download PDF
592 KB, 60 pages
Acrobat Reader required
NCSET logo

National Center on Secondary Education and Transition

ESSENTIAL TOOLS —
Cultural and Linguistic Diversity:
Implications for Transition Personnel


PART III — Continuum of “Individualistic” and “Collectivistic” Values

Introduction

Transition policies and practices typically assume that youth with disabilities and their families give priority to individual-oriented outcomes such as self-determination, self-reliance, and independent living. However, not all youth and families share these values (Bui & Turnbull, 2003). This section of the Essential Tool explores the role of culture in the transition process. Culture refers to the patterns of values and learned behaviors that are shared and transmitted from generation to generation by the members of a social group. “Values” as used here includes beliefs, assumptions, and attitudes. “Worldview” is another term that could be used in this way. Values in this broad sense are assumed to guide how people live their lives, including their moral judgments, goals, and behaviors. Exploring and understanding the values of youth and their families is therefore an important key for planning and providing transition services and supports, and in achieving better outcomes.

However, it is beyond the scope of this Essential Tool to explore the many different values shared within all ethnic/racial subgroups. It is possible, however, to identify an area of contrast between the values of American mainstream culture and the values characteristic of many other cultures (Niles, 1998). This contrast—between “individualistic” and “collectivistic” values—will be discussed in this part, focusing on related implications for the transition process. An example using self-determination will illustrate the importance of understanding and addressing the contrast between individualistic and collectivistic values.

It is important to realize that values, like any human characteristic, fall along a continuum. There are elements of both individualism and collectivism in any culture (Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2001). For example, a culture oriented to individualism might highly value being able to work independently, while a culture oriented to collectivism might highly value being able to work as part of a group. However, the first culture almost certainly also values being able to work as part of a group, and the second culture also values being able to work independently. The difference is in the relative importance that each culture places on these contrasting values. The concept of a continuum also applies to individuals within a culture. Most members of a collectivistic culture will hold values at the collectivistic end of the continuum, although each will be at a different spot on the continuum, and some will even be at the individualistic end. Where they are on the continuum of values depends on such factors as how closely they identify with traditional culture, their level of education, and the ethnic mix of their community. This variability among people again illustrates the need for individualization in transition services and supports (Atkins, 1992).

As Trumbull et al. (2001) note, it is important for personnel to understand the basic differences between individualism and collectivism because these two orientations

guide rather different developmental scripts for children and for schooling; and conflicts between them are reflected daily in U.S. classrooms. Keener awareness of how they shape goals and behaviors can enable teachers and parents to interpret each other’s expectations better and work together more harmoniously on behalf of students (p. 6).

Alternative Views of People as Independent or Interdependent

Individualism and collectivism are subsets of broad worldviews, which have been called, respectively, atomism and holism (Shore, 1996). Atomism is prominent in the western hemisphere and refers to the tendency to view things in terms of their component parts. This orientation has supported advances such as scientific discoveries about how the physical world works and the development of assembly line manufacturing. Holism is characteristic of most CLD cultures and refers to the tendency to view all aspects of life as interconnected.

Atomism and holism lead to differences in how the boundaries between people are conceived, which, in turn, lead to differences between individualistic and collectivistic values (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The primary individualistic view is that there are sharp boundaries between people, with each person being a complete unit. In other words, people are considered to be independent. They are generally also thought to have rights and responsibilities that are more or less the same. A person’s identity (i.e., the sense of self) in an individualistic society tends to be based mainly on one’s personal experiences—accomplishments, challenges, career, relationships with other people, etc.

By contrast, the primary collectivistic view is that people are not separate units, but rather are part and parcel of a larger group (i.e., extended family, village, or tribe). In other words, people are interdependent. A person’s identity in a collectivistic society tends to be based on one’s roles and experiences within the group context. For example, people in traditional Pacific Island cultures have been described as developing “shared identities” as the result of “sharing food, water, land, spirits, knowledge, work, and social activities” (Linnekin & Poyer, 1990, p. 8). Similarly, according to Lieber (1990), “The person is not an individual in our Western sense of the term. The person is instead a locus of shared biographies: personal histories of people’s relationships with other people and with other things. The relationship defines the person, not vice-versa” (p. 72).

This traditional Pacific Island view of the person falls at the extreme collectivistic end of the continuum, while the American mainstream view of the person is widely considered to fall closer to the extreme individualistic end than any other culture (Lasch, 1978; Shore, 1996). Yet even these cultures each reflect elements from the other end of the continuum to varying degrees. Americans, for example, develop a kind of “shared identity” when they cheer together for the same sports team. When they identify a part of themselves with the team, they tend to feel a bond with each other and experience similar emotions of joy, pride, sadness, etc. at the same time, depending how the game unfolds and whether the team wins or loses.

Where a person’s preference falls on the collectivistic-individualistic continuum depends on his or her culture, socioeconomic status, and historical era. Interdependent values appear to be stronger among people living in conditions of scarcity and threat, because they depend more on each other for survival. For example, settlers of the American West during the 1800s probably had a more interdependent orientation than most Americans today, as reflected in how they helped each other build barns and harvest crops.

The relatively extreme individualism of American mainstream culture today is made possible by a high and dependable standard of living that allows self-sufficiency (i.e., independence) to be the expected norm. Youth of American mainstream culture almost always have ready access to a substantial store of economic and social capital accumulated by their families. This capital allows them to begin practicing independence and self-sufficiency at an early age and to be supported to achieve independence and self-sufficiency as they transition to adulthood.

By contrast, Americans living in poverty generally have much lower levels of economic and social capital that can support independent lifestyles. Unfortunately, the social fabric of many low-income communities has become so frayed that effective interdependence may not be possible for many residents. If one’s friends and relatives are unemployed, there’s little chance they can help the person get a job. Government and private programs have been developed to fill the gaps, but an unintended consequence has apparently been to foster dependence in many program participants, who may rely heavily on agency personnel rather than interdependent natural support networks (Zuckerman, 2000).

Contrasts Between Individualistic and Collectivistic Values

The basic individualistic and collectivistic views of people as either independent or interdependent lead to contrasting sets of values. Nearly three-fourths of the world’s cultures can be described as collectivistic (Triandis, 1989). CLD groups generally fall at the collectivistic end, although American Black culture has absorbed some of the prominent values of American mainstream individualism (Ellison, Boykin, Towns, & Stokes, 2000). This section summarizes some common contrasts in values of particular relevance to the transition process (Black, Mrasek, & Ballinger, 2003; Lynch & Hanson, 1998; Triandis, 1995; Trumbull et al., 2001; Yamauchi, 1998).

Orientation to Self or Group

The individualistic view of people as independent units leads to emphasis on a range of self-oriented values and skills that support independent living. These values include self-sufficiency, self-determination, self-advocacy, self-competence, self-direction, self-efficacy, self-regulation, self-reliance, and self-responsibility. On the other hand, the collectivistic view of people as interdependent leads to emphasis on group-oriented values and skills that contribute to effectively filling roles within the family or other group. Instead of living independently or going away to college, the young adult may be expected to remain at home and fulfill roles within the family.

Decision-Making

Culture influences how decisions are made within a family. In traditional collectivistic cultures, there is likely to be a social hierarchy based on gender, birth order, and/or age. Family elders may be highly respected, and they often have roles of authority with responsibility to make sure family members do what is best for the family rather than what is best for themselves as individuals. Elders may have final say about how far their children go in school, who they marry, or where they work. Decisions by authority figures in collectivist cultures are likely to be obeyed with less questioning than is typical in individualistic cultures. There are, however, many collectivistic cultures with a strong egalitarian orientation that promotes shared decision-making, although most people of CLD backgrounds in America come from more hierarchical cultures. In American individualism, the ideal is for all people to be able to freely make their own decisions. The opinions of family elders may be respected, but as youth enter adulthood, they expect and are expected to make decisions about their own lives.

Dennis and Giangreco (1996) provide the following examples of how decision-making in some CLD families might differ from the American mainstream:

Hawaiian children are not given much personal choice/control in the family. They are “seen but not heard.” They are expected to be responsible for personal self, take care of younger siblings, respect their elders, contribute to family chores, and not “embarrass” the family by drawing attention to themselves (p. 108).

In many Hispanic families, control of important decisions remains with the parents (or grandparents) until the child reaches adulthood or marries and moves away from the family….To assume that the student with disabilities’ choice supersedes that of the parents may violate the cultural patterns of the particular family and inject conflict into the family system (p. 108).

Knowledge Transmission

Social hierarchy also strongly influences how knowledge is obtained and transmitted. In many collectivistic cultures, people of high social status may be seen as holding important cultural and technological knowledge. This knowledge may have traditionally been memorized (i.e., rather than recorded in writing) and transmitted orally. Much of this knowledge may be reserved only for people who have passed ceremonial milestones or belong to a restricted group, so that they can effectively fill their social roles. It may be considered disrespectful for children to express their opinions to or ask many questions of their elders. Instead they may be expected to absorb and then reflect back the knowledge provided to them by their elders, who determine when youngsters are ready to learn. In individualistic cultures, it is more likely that children are encouraged to form and express opinions and to seek knowledge at a pace they self-determine. An important individualistic value is that knowledge should be freely available to anyone who wants it.

Individual Choice and Personal Responsibility

All cultures seem to acknowledge that how people behave affects what will happen to them, whether in this life or a presumed afterlife. However, there are different views of the responsibility for those outcomes. American individualism highly values the freedom to choose for oneself. People are assumed to have free will, and from an early age they may be reminded that each choice has consequences for which they will be held personally responsible. In collectivistic cultures, the ideals of individual choice and free will are less likely to be highly valued, and less emphasis may be placed on personal responsibility for outcomes. Collectivistic cultures are more likely than individualistic ones to allow for external explanations for the cause of a good or bad event (e.g., fate, spiritual intervention, or the demands of social superiors). People in individualistic cultures may be allowed or even encouraged to make choices based on what is best individually, while people in collectivistic cultures are more likely to be expected to give priority to what is best for the group.

Concepts of Progress

A widely shared value in American mainstream individualism is that people should continually be improving themselves and advancing in their educations, careers, and other endeavors. Everyone’s individual efforts combined are expected to generate progress at the national level as well, especially in terms of a higher standard of living. Traditional collectivistic cultures, however, may not place a strong value on this kind of progress. For one thing, time may be viewed less like an arrow into the future and more like a circular process, as seasons change in their regular order and humans repeat their traditional activities, such as planting or harvesting crops. The concern of the family and community may be mainly on faithfully carrying on the activities that have sustained their lives over generations, rather than trying to improve on the system into which they were born. In addition, there may be a focus on spiritual rather than material advancement.

Competitiveness

In American individualism, people can show that they have valued characteristics–such as mastery of certain skills or being able to perform under pressure–by competing with and doing better than others. From the perspective of many collectivist cultures, however, Americans are often considered too competitive and focused on material rewards (Kohn, 1992). Collectivistic cultures are more likely to emphasize cooperation among group members as the basis for success in competition with other groups, whether at the level of the family, business, or nation. Members of successful groups take pride in what the group has accomplished.

Shame and Guilt

People are likely to feel shame or guilt if they do poorly in competition or behave in ways that others criticize. Fear of failing or losing may keep people from tackling a challenge or entering a competition. As social emotions, shame and guilt naturally vary across cultures. Because people with an individualistic orientation tend to view themselves as being more in control of their own lives, they may be more likely to blame themselves and feel shame or guilt if they do not meet expectations. Because people with a collectivistic orientation are more likely to identify strongly with their family or some other group, they tend to be more likely to feel shame or guilt if their behavior is judged to bring disgrace on the group.

Help Seeking

In some collectivistic cultures, great importance is placed on maintaining the family reputation by not shaming it. This perspective can delay or prevent getting help if conditions such as mental illness or disabilities are viewed as sources of shame. Furthermore family members in a collectivistic culture may desire or feel obligated to care for relatives in need, so accepting help from others may be viewed as evading family responsibilities (Boone, 1992). In American mainstream culture families also take care of their own, however, often people feel they should take care of their own needs and only turn to their families as a “last resort.” This is reflected in statements by parents who say they do not want to be a “burden” on their children in their old age, while in collectivistic cultures it is often expected that children will care for their elderly parents (Mason, 1992). For example, CLD youth may be expected to remain at home after exiting high school to care for a sick relative.

Expression of Identity

American mainstream culture promotes self-expression. Cars, clothes, cosmetics, and most other consumer items are often marketed in terms of how they help people to express their inner selves (Shore, 1996). In collectivistic cultures, by contrast, people are more likely to adopt an appearance appropriate for their social status, with less concern for expressing what makes them unique as individuals.

Property Ownership

Individualistic notions of property generally emphasize that objects, land, ideas, etc., are owned by individuals who give consent for others to use their property or who are due compensation when their property is used. However, the collectivistic perspective on social relationships is often associated with a more communal view of ownership. Personal items such as clothes or toys, for example, might be considered to be family rather than individual property, and therefore more freely shared.

Interaction Style

Each culture has its own norms for how people should behave with each other. Misunderstandings are therefore likely when people from different cultures interact. Common tendencies in American individualism include directly raising topics or issues, freely expressing personal opinions, and asking personal questions, even of strangers. All of these tendencies are generally less prominent in collectivistic cultures. Norms vary a great deal across cultures for the distance at which people feel comfortable talking to each other or for appropriate touching (e.g., it may be customary for people to greet each other by hugging, shaking hands, or bowing). In all cultures, interaction norms depend on people’s social status. In many collectivistic cultures it is especially likely that younger or socially lower people are expected to behave in a respectful and obedient way when interacting with older or people of higher social rank. This is an extremely common source of misunderstanding between American mainstream educators and CLD students. For example, many Pacific Island, American Indian, and Asian children are raised to look away when talking to social superiors, because looking someone in the eye is equated with being disrespectful or challenging authority. However, American mainstream educators may interpret looking away as being inattentive or disrespectful.

Expectations for Adulthood

All cultures have expectations about how children typically behave and how their behaviors should change as they mature and demonstrate readiness for adulthood. In individualistic cultures, expectations tend to fall at the independent end of the continuum: Adults should be self-sufficient, set and pursue personal goals, be true to their personal values, and meet their civic responsibilities in a context of social equality. In collectivistic cultures, expectations tend to fall at the interdependent end of the continuum: Adults should contribute to the group, work with others to achieve mutual goals, adhere to the traditional values of the group, and understand their place within the social hierarchy and perform their expected roles.

Table 4. Contrasts in Emphasis between Common Collectivistic and Individualistic Values

Continuum of Values

Collectivistic

Individualistic

Interdependence

Independence

Obligations to others

Individual rights

Rely on group

Self-sufficiency

Adhere to traditional values

True to own values and beliefs

Maintain traditional practices

Continuously improve practices (progress)

Fulfill roles within group

Pursue individual goals/interests

Group achievement

Individual achievement

Competition between groups

Competition between individuals

Group or hierarchical decision-making

Self-determination and individual choice

Shame/guilt due to failing group

Shame/guilt due to individual failure

Living with kin

Independent living

Take care of own

Seek help if needed

Property shared within group

Strong individual property rights

Elders transmit knowledge (often oral)

Individuals seek knowledge (often textual)

Objects valued for social uses

Objects valued for technological uses


Implications for Transition Personnel: The Example of Self-Determination

What are the implications of the individualistic-collectivistic continuum of values for transition? This section briefly explores these implications through the example of self-determination. Self-determination is widely considered to be essential for transition success, but is typically defined from an individualistic perspective that gives high priority to personal autonomy and independence (MacGugen, 1991). For example, Field and Hoffman (1994) define self-determination as “the ability to identify and achieve goals based on a foundation of knowing and valuing oneself” (p. 164)–a definition that omits important collectivistic values such as knowing and attending to one’s roles and responsibilities within the group.

Given that CLD groups commonly stress group participation and interdependence, transition practices and procedures may need to be modified if they are to be effective with youth and families from collectivistic backgrounds (Black, Mrasek, & Ballinger, 2003; Greene, 1996; Leake, Black, & Roberts, 2004; Luft, 2001). For example, transition teams may decide to focus on enhancing different skills depending on the cultural context of the youth and family. If the context is individualistic with an emphasis on personal autonomy and freedom of choice, then skills such as self-observation, self-evaluation, self-reinforcement, self-awareness, self-knowledge, and self-advocacy are likely to be important (Black, Mrasek, & Ballinger, 2003). In contrast, from the interdependent collectivistic standpoint, many highly valued skills for adulthood are likely to be other-oriented rather than self-oriented. Such skills might include understanding one’s roles in the group, perceiving and responding appropriately to the emotional status of others, and being able to work as part of a team (Yamauchi, 1998). Self-determination and maturity from a collectivistic perspective are likely to include giving priority to the group’s well-being. In order to help make self-determination a reality, skills such as goal-setting may need to be gained by the family as a unit.

For most social-service personnel educated in the western hemisphere, the family or society in general might be viewed as an obstacle to individual choice and self-determination (Ewalt & Mokuau, 1995). As a result, “rarely is contributing to the group’s well-being considered integral to self-determination, and rarely is placing the group’s well-being first seen as signifying maturity” (p. 169). Yet people who grow up in a collectivistic culture are likely to give very high priority to their social relationships and to have strong feelings of affiliation with, concern for, and obligation to members of their group. These feelings tend to lead people to develop goals that are more group-oriented than self-oriented. “As paradoxical as it may seem from an individualistic perspective, self-directedness may require a strengthening rather than a dissolution of the person’s connection with and commitment to the group” (p. 170).

Transition personnel should recognize that self-determination for youth with disabilities means they should be able to define what self-determination really represents for them and their families. Is it a matter of independent people, on their own, making choices and setting goals to promote their self-sufficiency, autonomy, and individual advancement? Or is it a matter of interdependent people, in collaboration with significant others, making choices and setting goals to maximize ability to function as a valued group member and promote the well-being of the group?

A similar contrast may be seen with regard to the concept of self-efficacy, which is closely related to that of self-determination. Self-efficacy refers to having essential attitudes and skills for meeting one’s values and achieving one’s goals, such as managing and regulating one’s own behavior and emotions according to the demands of the social environment. Psychologist Albert Bandura is well-known for his promotion of self-efficacy as a key to personal success and good mental health. Some critics have contended that self-efficacy is an individualistic concept that is not relevant for collectivistic cultures. Bandura’s (1997) response is that all people want to be efficacious (i.e., effective) in their roles, whether working individually or collectively.

It has also been argued that self-determination research and interventions have been limited by an atomistic orientation that leads to too much focus on the component skills of self-determination. The focus on self-determination skills is understandable, because they can be taught through direct instruction in much the same way that academic skills such as math, reading, and writing are taught (Field & Hoffman, 2002). However, according to Mithaug (1996), a

…difficult obstacle has to do with what must be taught in order for students to become self-determined. The difficulty here is that the perceptions, knowledge, and abilities comprising the process of self-determination are not easily deconstructed or task-analyzed, taught separately, and then reconstructed into the functional process of self-determination–problem solving to meet personal goals. In fact, the very processes of deconstruction, of building skills one at a time, and then of reconstructing the learned components to solve real-life problems can take so long that the learner loses sight of the purpose and value of what she or he is learning (p. 150).

According to Turnbull et al. (1996), the focus on teaching self-determination skills is in line with the widespread “fix-it” approach in special education, which is oriented to identifying and remediating deficits within the individual. They propose a holistic alternative to this “unidimensional emphasis on individual skills” (p. 237), suggesting that self-determination has two other key components in addition to individual skills, namely motivation and a responsive context that provides appropriate opportunities for self-determination. Their analysis is highly relevant for CLD youth, because the self-determination skills that are typically taught are rooted in individualistic values that give priority to personal autonomy over group participation. They recommend that in working with youth and families from collectivistic backgrounds, transition personnel should:

  • Consider acculturation*, family composition, and community supports to determine if self-determination skills are congruent with cultural values, and whether these skills will be appreciated if expressed in a culturally relevant manner;
  • Discover and build on the family’s problem-solving process; and
  • Consider if self-determination skills determined in a culturally relevant manner will have utility within American mainstream culture.

Youth and Family Involvement in the Transition Planning Process

The involvement of youth and their families is critical to the success of education and transition planning. However, CLD parents are often not as involved as they could be, because of barriers related to socioeconomic circumstances, language, or cultural/ideological values (Boone, 1992; Harry, 1992). According to Dennis and Giangreco (1996), educators need to be aware of factors that shape the priorities and perspectives of youth and families and influence the level of involvement they are willing or able to achieve. These factors include:

  • The emotional climate of racial, religious, or ethnic discrimination;
  • The implications of poverty;
  • Differences in family composition;
  • Family work practices and roles;
  • Neighborhoods and living environments;
  • The nature, degree, and duration of acculturation into the dominant cultural group; and
  • The experience of living in a family who has a member with disabilities or special needs.

Part IV describes approaches and tools that transition personnel can use for enhanced family involvement and the culturally sensitive individualization of transition planning and supports. As personnel get to know a youth and family on a more personal level, they may be more likely to uncover and have to address a difficult challenge: There may be conflict within the family about the appropriate roles of members in the transition planning process, what appropriate transition goals for the youth should be, or other issues. Conflict within a family is often related to generational differences that result when youth strive for acculturation to American mainstream culture while their elders focus on maintaining collectivistic cultural traditions, although in some families the youth may be more committed to traditional ways. Transition personnel can play a positive role in helping to resolve family conflicts and support CLD youth with disabilities when they adopt “cultural reciprocity,” an approach described in Part IV. This approach can help both personnel and youth and families to better understand their own and each other’s cultural assumptions, so they are better able to engage in effective dialogue.

Conclusion

Because transition systems are typically rooted in individualistic cultural assumptions, they often fall short in accommodating collectivistic values and behaviors. In order to effectively support the transition of CLD youth with disabilities, transition personnel need to be aware of the contrasts between individualism and collectivism and of the cultural basis of their own values and practice. This part outlined many of the contrasts between relevant individualistic and collectivistic values, but at a very general level. Obviously, transition personnel should be familiar with the common values and traditions of specific CLD groups with whom they work. An excellent resource in this regard is the most widely used book on cultural competence, Developing Cross-Cultural Competence: A Guide for Working with Children and Their Families (3rd Edition), edited by Eleanor W. Lynch and Marci J. Hanson (1998). The book provides an overview on cultural competence and includes nine chapters on different CLD groups written by experts from the respective cultures. The chapters summarize the demographics, traditions, values, beliefs, attitudes toward child rearing and disability, and groups’ history in America as well as advice on how to effectively collaborate with families.


* Acculturation, as used in this document, refers to the cultural modification of an individual or group through the adoption and integration of traits from a different culture.


Table of Contents

Part I – Essential Tool Overview
Introduction
Key Questions
Intended Audience
How This Essential Tool Is Organized
Ensuring Practices Presented Are Evidence-Based

Part II – CLD Youth with Disabilities in Transition
Introduction
Statistical Comparisons of Ethnic/Racial Groups
Strengths to Build On for Transition Success
Challenges Commonly Faced by CLD Youth with Disabilities in Transition
Conclusion

Part III – Continuum of “Individualistic” and “Collectivistic” Values
Introduction
Alternative Views of People as Independent or Interdependent
Contrasts Between Individualistic and Collectivistic Values
Implications for Transition Personnel: The Example of Self-Determination
Youth and Family Involvement in the Transition Planning Process
Conclusion

Part IV – The Culturally Sensitive Individualization of Services and Supports
Introduction
Cultural Reciprocity
Person-Centered Planning
Conclusion

References

Other Resources Available on the Internet
Assistive Technology
Career Development and Employment
Cultural Competence
Dropout Prevention
Empowerment
Financial Supports
Limited English Proficiency
Mentoring
Person-Centered Planning
Positive Behavioral Supports
Postsecondary Education
Self-Determination and Self-Advocacy
Social Inclusion
Strengths-Based Assessment
Transition



E-mail this page
Download PDF
592 KB, 60 pages
Acrobat Reader required

Citation: Leake, D., & Black, R. (2005). Essential tools: Cultural and linguistic diversity: Implications for transition personnel. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.

Permission is granted to duplicate this publication in its entirety or portions thereof. Upon request, this publication will be made available in alternate formats. To request an alternate format, please contact: Institute on Community Integration Publications Office, 109 Pattee Hall, 150 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, (612) 624-4512, icipub@umn.edu.

This document was published by the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET). NCSET is supported through a cooperative agreement #H326J000005 with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of the U.S. Department of Education Programs, and no official endorsement should be inferred. The University of Minnesota, the U.S. Department of Education, and the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition are equal opportunity employers and educators.