Teacher Education and Special Teacher Education: The Journal of the

Transcription

Teacher Education and Special
Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children
http://tes.sagepub.com
The Changing Education Landscape: How Special Education Leadership
Preparation Can Make a Difference for Teachers and Their Students With
Disabilities
Deborah Deutsch Smith, Susan Mortorff Robb, Jane West and Naomi Chowdhuri Tyler
Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children 2010; 33; 25
DOI: 10.1177/0888406409358425
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/1/25
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Teacher Education Division of the Council of Exceptional Children
Additional services and information for Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://tes.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/33/1/25
Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010
Teacher Education and Special Education
33(1) 25–43
© 2010 Teacher Education Division of
the Council for Exceptional Children
Reprints and permission: http://www
.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0888406409358425
http://tese.sagepub.com
The Changing Education
Landscape: How Special
Education Leadership
Preparation Can Make
a Difference for Teachers and
Their Students With Disabilities
Deborah Deutsch Smith1, Susan Mortorff Robb1,
Jane West2, and Naomi Chowdhuri Tyler3
Abstract
The roles and obligations of teacher educators have expanded substantially in recent years.
Expectations have increased because of national concerns about the overall achievement results
of all students and because of specific federal mandates—expressed in reauthorizations of the
No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004—about students with disabilities and their access to the general education curriculum
and their increased, successful participation in inclusive educational settings. Complicated by
the chronic and persistent shortage of special educators and the imperative that general educators have increased skills to address the needs of all struggling learners, demands on special
education college and university faculty have magnified. However, the nation continues to face
a shortage of faculty who can generate new knowledge about effective practices, translate such
research findings into teacher preparation programs’ curriculum, and prepare a sufficient supply of new and highly skilled teachers. In this article, the authors discuss the current policy
landscape, connections between the shortage of teachers and the shortage of special education
faculty, and the role of the federal government in addressing these shortages. They conclude
with a call for national dialogue—necessary so that the continuing cycle of faculty shortages and
resulting shortages of those who directly serve students with disabilities may finally be resolved.
Keywords
special education faculty shortage, supply and demand of highly qualified teachers, higher education policy, federal role in leadership (doctoral) preparation
The connection between teacher educators
working in colleges and universities and education professionals working in school settings is clear, although often underestimated.
Most practitioners receive their training from
college faculty, either through traditional
undergraduate and graduate degree programs
or through university-based nontraditional
1
Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,
Washington, DC
3
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
2
Corresponding Author:
Deborah Deutsch Smith, 1237 North Dartmouth Avenue,
Claremont, CA 91711
Email: [email protected]
26
Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1)
certification routes (Rosenberg, Boyer, Sindelar,
& Misra, 2007). Furthermore, the foundation
for proven classroom practices has been built
through decades of research most often conducted by faculty at our nation’s institutions
of higher education (IHEs). The complexity
of the faculty–practitioner relationship
becomes even more apparent when you consider the interdependent nature of faculty
and practitioners’ supply-and-demand variables; that is, faculty train teachers, some of
whom—after years of providing direct services to students with disabilities—return to
graduate school for advanced study. After
obtaining a doctorate, many of them become
faculty who assume the responsibilities for
training teachers, translating research to practice, and conducting research that leads to
evidence-based practices. This perpetual cycle
is at the core of a complex dynamic within the
supply and demand of special education personnel. Any imbalance among these supplyand-demand variables can seriously affect
the education of students with disabilities. A
shortage of faculty leads to a shortage of
teachers, which then results in a greater
shortage of faculty and an eventual shrinkage of the profession, the knowledge base,
and a reduction in the capacity to provide necessary services to students with disabilities
and their families.
Across the nation, there are some 1,450
schools, colleges, and departments of education (Duncan, 2009). These administrative
units offer approximately 2,500 special education personnel preparation programs (Personnel Improvement Center, 2009). Proportionally,
however, a small number (some 100) prepare leadership personnel across a variety of
emphases that produce school leaders, advocates, policy makers, teacher educators, and
researchers (Smith, 2009a). A shortage of any
type of leader can seriously hamper the field’s
infrastructure and hinder improved results of
students with disabilities. In this article, we
focus our discussion on the preparation of
future faculty because this aspect of the leadership agenda is often overlooked when one
considers either the supply of teachers well
equipped to work within inclusive educational
settings or the generation of new knowledge
about effective practices.
For decades, parents, school leaders, and
policy makers have consistently raised concerns about the chronic and persistent shortage of special education teachers (Boe &
Cook, 2006), and today, concerns are being
added about general education teachers’ preparedness to work with students with disabilities (U.S. Government Accountability
Office, 2009). Also, because of more prescriptive federal legislation and national
policies, today’s teachers must meet more
stringent standards and possess additional
knowledge and skills. Clearly, the supply of
new, differently prepared general and special
education teachers must increase. In turn, the
knowledge, skills, and currency of university
faculty must reflect these latest standards. In
this article, we discuss new demands on
teachers and the educational system at large,
as well as the impact that these policies are
having on teacher education programs in a
time of fiscal constraints and in a period
when the nation is experiencing a great shortage of not only teachers but also faculty. We
also discuss the increased demand for general and special education teachers who are
highly skilled and versatile in the application
of research-based practices. We then turn our
attention to the important role that teacher
educators have in improving the results for
all students. Afterward, we shift the discussion to leadership preparation by providing a
history of this enterprise, the role of the federal government in the development and support of this endeavor, and the major findings
of the only comprehensive study of supply
and demand of special education faculty—a
study that revealed a serious shortage of new
doctorates. We also describe an extension of
that research (which is currently underway),
and we conclude with an agenda for national
dialogue that must be initiated so that doctoral preparation in special education is
responsive to new demands for a high-quality
workforce of general and special educators
now and in decades to come.
27
Smith et al.
The Policy Landscape:
Insistence on Validated Practices
Recent national legislation has affected education initiatives and guidelines for practice
more than ever before. Current federal policies now demand that results for schools and
students improve, and as mandated through
legislation, such policies dictate the implementation of specific practices and accountability measures (U.S. Department of Education,
2006). Furthermore, these policies—as translated into the K–12 curriculum, classroom
instruction, and assessment standards—affect
not only schools and teachers but also teacher
preparation (Bain, Lancaster, Zundans, &
Parkes, 2009). Teacher educators must now
prepare future teachers who can demonstrate
competence across a far greater range of pedagogy and content. For example, general educators must be masterful at creating an
educational environment that is inclusive and
supportive of all struggling learners, including those with disabilities. They should be
able to differentiate their instruction to support all learners and maximize their learning,
often through multitiered approaches (e.g.,
response to intervention, positive behavioral
interventions and supports). They must also
be able to select specific effective instructional
methods and implement them with fidelity
(Mowbray, Holter, Teague, & Bybee, 2003).
General and special educators are accountable
for the progress of their students, which is
assessed not only through statewide achievement testing but also through individualized
assessment measurements developed directly
from the curriculum. Specifically for students
with disabilities, teachers must be able to modify the curriculum to meet alternate and modified achievement standards, and they must
adapt instruction to address the learning styles
of individual students.
Instructional practices, now advocated
through federal policy and legislation, are creating a sea change for all educational professionals who work with students in inclusive
school settings (Fuchs & Young, 2006). We
highlight some of these key policy shifts to
serve as examples of how such policies influence the field. More important, we hope that
these examples provide a better understanding
about how such policy shifts have and will
continue to have an impact on teacher preparation programs across the nation.
Policies Guiding Inclusive
and Supportive Learning Environments
The No Child Left Behind Act and changes in
the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004 reflect the understanding that effective teachers are at the core
of every student’s learning. These laws also
extend the requirement of Individuals With
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
1997 that all students with disabilities have
access to the general education curriculum
and be educated in the least restrictive educational setting possible. These policies implicitly require that all education professionals be
well versed in grade-level curriculum and be
able to meet the learning needs of an exceptionally diverse student body. Because all students
now participate in accountability measurements
to evaluate their learning, educators need to
ensure that the learning environments they create are truly supportive.
More than ever before, federal policies call
out and encourage the application of specific
practices. We believe that principles embedded
in the practice referred to as universal design
for learning, which is intended to broaden students’ access to the curriculum, provides an
excellent example of how today’s legislation
and regulations extend far beyond those of the
past by calling out specific practices in legislation. Universal design for learning is an outgrowth of the architectural term universal
design, and it connotes design for use by the
maximum number of people regardless of
physical or intellectual needs (Center for
Applied Special Technology, 2007; IRIS Center for Training Enhancements, 2009; Samuels,
2007). A curb cut may be the most commonly
recognized illustration of universal design.
This element was initially designed to provide
access for individuals who use wheelchairs but
28
is now used by everyone, from moms pushing
strollers from a sidewalk to a crosswalk to
skateboarders continuing their ride to those
of us using roller-board suitcases at airports.
When applied to education, the term universal
design for learning conjures up the image of a
curb cut to make information accessible for
the widest array of students. In 2008, when the
U.S. Congress reauthorized the Higher Education Act (now the Higher Education Opportunity Act), it used a definition of universal
design for learning similar to the one found
in Individuals With Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004:
a scientifically valid framework for
guiding educational practice that
(A) provides flexibility in the ways
information is presented, in the ways
students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged
(B) reduces barriers in instruction,
provides appropriate accommodations,
supports and challenges, and maintains
high achievement expectations for all
students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited in
English proficiency. (Section 103.a.24)
Not only does the federal government
specify guiding principles that seek to increase
access, but it also promotes instructional procedures in its policies. Such regulations are
further extensions of national policies into
classroom settings.
Policies Insisting on Validated
Instruction and Interventions
Whereas the No Child Left Behind Act and
the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004 both insist that
instructional methods used by teachers be validated, federal policies have gone further by
describing educational reform that builds on
specific evidence-based practices. For example, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 paved the way
for a virtual explosion in two key areas of
educational intervention: positive behavioral
interventions and supports (Bradshaw, Reinke,
Brown, Bevans, & Leaf, 2008) and response
to intervention (e.g., Gersten et al., 2009;
Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2008). Both interventions are designed to be systemic and
applied schoolwide (rather than individualized). They are applied in general education
settings and are multitiered—that is, applied
with increasing intensity in response to students’ performance. In other words, positive
behavioral interventions and supports and
response to intervention initially involve all
students and then provide increasingly intensive interventions for students who require
additional support. Neither intervention is a
curriculum, however. The first, positive behavioral interventions and supports, is a decisionmaking framework that guides selection,
integration, and implementation of the best
evidence-based practices for improving important academic and behavior outcomes for all
students. The second, response to intervention,
is a similar but multitiered approach to help
struggling learners. Students’ data are closely
monitored at each stage of intervention to
determine the need for further research-based
instruction or intervention in general education
or special education or through both services.
We use positive behavioral interventions and
supports and response to intervention as examples not only to show the prescriptive nature
of federal policies but also to illustrate the
complex set of new skills that all teachers must
possess. The demand for reform in teacher
preparation programs should be apparent. Current and future teachers must possess a vast
new repertoire of skill sets different and unique
from the instructional expertise required only
a decade ago.
The Policy Landscape:
Impact on Teacher Education
In all the examples we just discussed, federal
policies require that new content be infused
into the curriculum of teacher preparation.
The federal government has certainly played
29
Smith et al.
an important role in shaping teacher education programs and so holds incentives to stimulate change (Kleinhammer-Tramill, 2001). It
often does so through the application process
for federal funding. For example, in the latest
round of this competitive process, the infusion of scientifically based practices into the
curriculum offered by all special education
teacher preparation programs was a requirement for funding of a personnel preparation
project by the Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP, 2009).
Whether based on federal support or not,
the impact of these new policy-driven innovations on teacher education programs is vast.
First, all teacher education programs have an
obligation to meet the demand for newly prepared, highly qualified teachers. However, with
the chronic and persistent shortage of teachers,
long-term issues remain about being able to
produce a sufficient supply. In part because of
the chronic shortage of special educators, the
constituent groups of faculty with expertise in
disability studies must expand to include all
education professionals (e.g., general education
teachers, school-based curriculum specialists,
school psychologists, principals). Furthermore,
the teacher preparation curriculum and its
related instruction and experiences will need
continual adjustments so that new teachers can
possess the most current knowledge base, have
the skills necessary to maintain this expertise,
and thus be highly qualified.
Preparing General Educators
to Instruct Students With Disabilities
The requirements for highly qualified teachers are necessary, given the trend toward
including more students with disabilities in
general education classrooms for more of the
school day. Data from the U.S. Department
of Education indicate that in the 2007 school
year, 57% of students with disabilities were
served in general education classrooms for at
least 80% of their school day (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Therefore, almost
all general education teachers instruct students with disabilities alongside their peers
without disabilities. The inclusion of students
with disabilities as a discrete subgroup in No
Child Left Behind has enabled a new level of
scrutiny related to their education. Although
students with disabilities achieve at far lower
levels than do students without disabilities,
considerable evidence suggests that they are
improving at an impressive rate and that the
distribution of their achievement ranges across
the proficiency scale (see West & Whitby,
2008). Thus, the myth that students with disabilities will be low performing is once again
challenged, and the argument for more inclusive educational opportunities becomes more
persuasive.
More and more students with disabilities
are being assessed through statewide tests on
the same content as general education students
(Rabinowitz, Sato, Case, Benitez, & Jordan,
2008); therefore, it is critical that such students receive instruction from teachers who
are highly knowledgeable in every content
area. Concern among policy makers about
students with disabilities faring poorly on
state- and districtwide assessments provided
the impetus for new requirements in the Higher
Education Opportunity Act for teacher preparation programs in higher education. Each
IHE with a teacher preparation program must
provide assurances that general education
teachers receive training about providing
instruction to diverse populations, including
students with disabilities and students with
limited-English proficiency. In addition, all
prospective special education teachers must
receive course work and training in providing
instruction in core academic subjects. Furthermore, the Higher Education Opportunity Act
(Section 251) authorizes an entirely new program, the Teach to Reach Grants, the sole
purpose of which is to prepare general education teachers to effectively educate students
with disabilities. Required activities include
ensuring that teacher candidates are skilled in
the methods used in response to intervention,
positive behavioral interventions and supports, and universal design for learning.
The expectation that students with disabilities will continue their education into
30
postsecondary school has increased in recent
years. For more than a decade, the Higher
Education Opportunity Act has supported programs that prepare faculty to instruct students
with disabilities in colleges and universities.
In 2008, this program was reauthorized and
strengthened, and several new programs were
included to improve access to higher education
for students with disabilities (West, 2009).
One such initiative creates model transition
and postsecondary programs for students with
intellectual disabilities where they, for the first
time, are eligible for federal financial aid if
they participate in higher education programs
that are designed for them. This new direction
expands the roles of IHE faculty and perhaps
implies a need for an ever-greater number of
professionals with expertise in the education
of individuals with disabilities.
Preparing Highly Qualified Special
Education Teachers
No Child Left Behind and changes in Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement
Act of 2004 reflect the understanding that
effective teachers are at the core of every student’s learning. In defining a “highly qualified
special education teacher,” these laws clearly
focus on ensuring that all teachers, including
those of students with disabilities, are knowledgeable in the content areas they are teaching.
Because students’ learning of content contained in the general education curriculum is
evaluated through statewide assessments, all
teachers must be well versed in the grade-level
curriculum. This requirement extends the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of
1997 requirement that all students with disabilities have access to the general education
curriculum. As a result, special education
teacher preparation programs have increasingly focused on ensuring that special education candidates have a major or a minor in the
content areas in which they will be teaching.
Another result is a shift toward increased
integration of teacher preparation for general
and special education teachers. Such a shift
requires teacher educators, their students, and
practicing teachers to acquire new sets of
collaboration and communication skills, such
as those required for co-teaching and collaborative consultation. The faculty who are preparing the next generation of teachers must be
versatile in this new knowledge base and the
skills needed to implement them while providing teacher candidates with field experiences
where they can witness effective collaboration and develop their skills under the supervision of expert teachers.
Accountability for Teacher
Preparation Results
For almost a decade, accountability measures
for educators have been a recurring theme in
national education policy conversations. Federal policy is now shifting attention to preservice preparation programs and encouraging
strong connections among teacher education,
teachers’ skills, and students’ learning. In particular, the effectiveness of teachers and principals is being linked to their preparation
programs. This shift is reaching a crescendo,
as demonstrated by the recently issued “Race
to the Top” draft priorities, a federal grant program of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This $4 billion program, to
be administered by the U.S. Department of
Education, requires that the performance of
teachers and principals be determined by their
students’ achievement as measured by statewide assessments (and possibly additional
data). In turn, teacher preparation programs
are to be evaluated by their graduates’ abilities
to improve their students’ achievement.
To develop statewide longitudinal data systems required by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, states must first have the
capacity to link teacher/student achievement
data to teacher preparation programs—not an
easy or cost-efficient process. At present, only
three such evaluation programs have been
attempted, and few states presently have the
capacity to initiate such complicated data systems (David Wright, personal communication,
August 20, 2009). For example, New York
City schools amassed a onetime data-based
31
Smith et al.
picture of student achievement and teacher
placements (Boyd et al., 2006). Although this
project was short-lived and unsustainable, it
made some preliminary links between teacher
performance and student achievement. On a
more longitudinal scale, Noell and colleagues
(Noell, Porter, Patt, & Dahir, 2008) reported
the effectiveness of specific teacher preparation programs and student achievement in
Louisiana through evaluation data they collected for the 2004–2005 to 2006–2007 school
years. For the past 10 years, the Center for
Teacher Quality, housed within the California
State University’s Office of the Chancellor, has
conducted annual evaluations of the university’s teacher graduates from each of its 23 campuses. Evaluation information provides data
about the effectiveness of each program’s
graduates after 1 year of teaching. These data
are used to improve the university’s teacher
preparation programs. Because of a collaborative effort between the Carnegie Foundation and the Center for Teacher Quality, the
ability to link teachers’ instruction directly to
their students’ achievement is on the horizon.
Whether statewide data systems are in place
or not, IHEs must be prepared to address these
new evaluation components about their training programs, and they must do so while the
pressure to increase the supply of new special
educators continues.
Addressing the Chronic and Persistent
Shortage of Special Education Teachers
The ongoing and persistent shortage of special
education teachers continues to be an important variable in personnel policy (Boe &
Cook, 2006; Boe, Sunderland, & Cook, 2006;
Brownell, Rosenberg, Sindelar, & Smith, 2004;
McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2004). Despite
job losses across almost every sector of the
American economy, the demand for special educators remains high, and almost every school
district in the country continues to face chronic
shortages of highly qualified special education
teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).
No doubt, the recent economic downturn
has devastated the labor force and reduced
employment possibilities for many Americans,
virtually eliminating long-term shortages experienced by many professions. However, not
every sector has been as affected. For example, “educational services” is one of only
five industries that has essentially remained
unchanged in its rate of job openings (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2007). In particular, the
demand for educators in the areas of mathematics, science, and special education remains
high. For the past 20 years, special education
has consistently been identified as a profession with one of the greatest shortages (U.S.
Department of Education, 2009). School districts in every state continue to experience
chronic and persistent shortages of those who
teach students with disabilities. In part because
of the insufficient supply and high demand for
these professionals, many states offer alternative licensure programs, maintain targeted
recruitment centers, and develop special Web
sites aimed at attracting qualified applicants
(Rosenberg et al., 2007). To assist with these
efforts, the federal government funds the
National Center to Improve Recruitment and
Retention of Qualified Personnel for Children
With Disabilities, or the Personnel Improvement Center. This organization seeks to
increase the pool of individuals interested in
becoming special educators (see http://www
.personnelcenter.org).
Although many strategies are being used
to address supply, the demand for special educators is expected to increase by some 15%
from now to 2016; this rate is greater than that
predicted for all other occupations (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2007). In fact, the need for
special education teachers in K–6 settings is
projected to increase by 20%, whereas the
need at the middle school level is projected to
increase by 16%. Furthermore, about 9% more
secondary special education teachers will be
needed to meet the needs of older students
with disabilities. Many factors contribute to
the continued increase in demand. One is the
exceptionally high attrition rate of special
education teachers (Boe & Cook, 2006).
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’
Occupational Outlook Handbook (2007), the
32
number of students requiring special education services has grown steadily. Experts predict that more students will have special needs
in the future, owing to advances in early diagnosis and to medical treatment that saves lives
but leaves individuals with disabilities (e.g.,
traumatic brain injury), to limited access to
preventive health services among poor and
immigrant families, and to the increased incidence of some conditions and disabilities
(e.g., autism).
The Role of Teacher
Preparation Programs
in the Results of Students
Only a few years ago, the benefits of a fully
prepared teaching workforce were not clear.
Some policy makers and much of the public
maintained that those teaching in the nation’s
schools do not have to be specially prepared to
assume roles as teachers (Finn, Rotherham, &
Hokanson, 2001). In particular, skill in pedagogy, the ability to apply a range of effective
instructional practices in a variety of instructional contexts, and the expertise to assess the
power of these interventions with diverse
learners are often undervalued. We now know
differently: Trained teachers improve student
outcomes and are more likely to remain in the
profession (Darling-Hammond, 2005, 2006a,
2006b; Futernick, 2007; Lyon, & Weiser,
2009). Certified teachers consistently produce
significantly stronger student achievement
gains than do uncertified teachers, with some
researchers indicating that students of uncertified teachers have 20% lower levels of academic achievement (Laczko-Kerr & Berliner,
2003). The authors of the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004 and its regulations reflect the importance
of having a highly qualified teacher for all students, those with and without disabilities (U.S.
Department of Education, 2006). However,
because of an IHE faculty shortage, teacher
education seems not to have the ability to meet
the demand for more teachers today or in the
future. In California, for example, the current
estimated workforce includes some 15,500
underprepared teachers (Guha, Shields, TiffanyMorales, Bland, & Campbell, 2008). At the
same time, the state is facing a historically
high rate of retirements and exceptionally low
rates of teacher production, particularly for
elementary schools. In addition, it is experiencing not only a substantial rise in the number of children identified as having moderate
to severe disabilities (California Department
of Education, 2009) but a resulting demand
for more teachers with the specialized skills to
educate these youngsters in inclusive settings
(Robb, 2007).
How can the nation increase its capacity to
produce more teachers who are qualified and
capable of working with students with special
needs? Because college and university faculty
are the primary source of all teacher training—
whether traditional or nontraditional (Rosenberg
et al., 2007)—the answer is to ensure that there
are sufficient numbers of faculty, instructors,
and supervisors to work in teacher preparation programs. In the next section, we provide
a brief history of special education doctoral
and leadership training in the United States
and some findings of the most recent study on
the supply and demand of special education
faculty.
Context and Background
of Leadership Preparation
in Special Education
Special education began long before the passage of the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act in 1975. The 1950s saw a growth
in educational programs for students with disabilities, particularly for those with mild to
moderate intellectual disabilities, who were
often educated in extremely restrictive settings
or did not receive a public education. There
were not sufficient numbers of professionals
to operate these new, school-based programs,
however, and the existing teachers and staff
did not have a knowledge base about effective
practices from which to draw when working
with this new population of students. That
33
Smith et al.
knowledge needed to come from research.
Therefore, in addition to recognizing a need
for more practitioners, Congress and federal
policy makers realized that there was a need
for personnel who could conduct research,
generate a knowledge base about these learners, and train teachers and other service providers. In short, there was a need for more
doctoral-level special education personnel.
In 1953, the National Institute of Mental
Health initiated a research training program
that prepared “mental retardation researchers,” most of whom worked as IHE faculty or
researchers at federally funded institutes or
centers. (This program continues today through
the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development’s Mental Retardation
and Developmental Disabilities Branch). In
1954, only 14 universities across the country
offered doctoral programs in special education (Schofer, 1962; Smith & Salzberg, 1994).
These programs were small and narrowly
focused, with a single field of emphasis (i.e.,
visual disabilities, deaf and hard of hearing,
intellectual disabilities). By 1959, programs
for students with disabilities were expanding,
and the need for teachers, teacher educators,
and leadership personnel became apparent.
Congress initiated a grant program (Schofer,
1962) to prepare doctoral-level personnel who
could lead the field and prepare generations
of teachers and other service providers.
The Power of Federal Funding
Perhaps the special education personnel preparation agenda is one of the best examples of
how external funding can have a dramatic
effect on the size and nature of educational
programs, at both the school level and the university level. As we mentioned, federal funding for leadership (doctoral) preparation in
special education began in 1959, when only
14 doctoral programs were in existence. During the first year of this new federal program,
titled the “Graduate Fellowship Program for
the Preparation of Leadership Personnel in the
Education of Mentally Retarded Children,” 15
doctoral programs were funded: 12 of the
existing programs and 3 new ones. Two years
later, 21 universities with doctoral programs
(i.e., 6 additional programs had been initiated)
were awarded fellowships, and 4 others were
provided with start-up funds (Schofer, 1962;
Smith & Salzberg, 1994). By 1987, a total of
85 special education doctoral programs were
listed in a program directory developed by the
Teacher Education Division (1987) of the
Council for Exceptional Children; many of
these were developed and supported through
federal funding of master’s and doctoral fellowships, resulting in both a rapidly expanding
capacity to deliver special education services
to students with disabilities and an increase in
the development of effective practices. This
rapid expansion is a certain demonstration of
the strength of incentives provided by the federal government (Kleinhammer-Tramill, 2001).
The Role of the OSEP
Nationally, three federal agencies—the OSEP,
the Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities Branch, and the Institute for Education Sciences—support doctoral training
focusing on the needs of individuals with
disabilities. The OSEP, however, is the primary source of federal funding for the preparation of doctoral-level personnel devoted to
improving the results for students with disabilities through teacher education and the
generation of new knowledge. Doctoral graduates fill a variety of important roles (e.g.,
policy makers, advocates, researchers,
teacher educators, school leaders) working
on behalf of students with disabilities. The
OSEP federal grants program, originally provided through the Bureau for the Education
of the Handicapped, stems from the original
legislation just discussed (Schofer, 1962). In
2009, the OSEP funded 507 special education
doctoral students through 77 four-year projects at 42 universities across the nation who
were training for a range of careers working
with an array of disabilities (Smith, 2009b).
The second program, the Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Branch
(begun in 1953), prepares biomedical and
34
biobehavioral researchers studying intellectual and developmental disabilities. This multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary training
program awards fellowships to individuals and
to training projects at universities that fund
groups of students. Although each year about
10 training projects are awarded to investigators at one of its 16 national centers, typically
only 3 of these projects focus on preparing
behavioral scientists whose work will focus
on individuals with intellectual disabilities.
The Institute for Education Sciences, the
third doctoral training program, was initiated
in 2003. The institute’s funds can be used to
support doctoral training with an emphasis on
individuals with disabilities. In 2009, the institute funded 15 five-year doctoral preparation
projects to universities. Only 1 of those projects’ abstracts, however, indicates education
of students with disabilities as an emphasis
area and only an optional area at that.
Without a doubt, the program managed
by the OSEP has, for some 50 years, been an
important continual funding stream to programs and students. The Leadership Preparation Initiative, a separate funding competition
for support of doctoral students, is important
in many ways. Project directors who receive
these awards report that this funding is critical for student recruitment, program stability,
and doctoral production (Smith & Robb, 2009).
They also report that the OSEP funding provides the infrastructure needed to maintain a
sufficient student body necessary to offer a
rich and broad doctoral program. Without this
funding, the number of full-time students
diminishes, and so too does the ability to
offer doctoral-level seminars.
The importance of the funding granted
through the OSEP program provides the agency
with the opportunity for exceptional influence.
It can purposively guide and direct the national
doctoral preparation effort in special education.
Any action taken by the OSEP—whether a
change in the amount of funding available per
project, the amount of financial assistance
provided students, or the number of projects
funded—will have a direct and immediate
effect on doctoral programs across the nation.
So any program modifications must be thought
through carefully so that the consequences of
every action is well understood before changes
are implemented. Any programmatic revisions
must be informed by data and be in response to
input from broad stakeholder input. Thus, to be
fully informed about the supply of doctoral
graduates and the demand for college and university faculty in special education, the OSEP
commissioned two studies of these topics: one
at the end of the last century and the other currently underway. We summarize findings from
the completed study next.
The Shortage of Faculty
in Special Education:
Findings From the 2001 Study
In 1999, special education university faculty
members joined policy makers, researchers,
and other stakeholders to form a team focused
on issues related to the supply and demand of
special education faculty. The team members
came together to determine whether a shortage of special education faculty existed and,
if so, to identify contributing factors and possible solutions. That work, completed in 2001
and now referred to as the Special Education
Faculty Shortage Study (Smith, Pion, Tyler,
& Gilmore, 2003; Smith, Pion, Tyler, Sindelar,
& Rosenberg, 2001), had six key findings:
first, a shortage of special education faculty
does exist; second, in the 20 years between
1981 and 2001, the number of special education doctorates produced annually decreased
by 30%; third, about 50% of those who
received doctoral degrees in special education
chose to work in higher education (the proportion dropped to 36% when only tenure-line
positions were considered); fourth, the percentage of doctoral graduates from historically
underrepresented groups who accepted faculty
positions (14%) was insufficient to meet the
diverse hiring needs expressed by search
coordinators; fifth, more than one third of
all faculty positions nationwide remained
unfilled; and, sixth, a supply–demand equilibrium (i.e., between new graduates and
35
Smith et al.
advertised positions) would be achieved only
if every new special education doctoral graduate assumed an open faculty position.
The problem created by the production of
fewer doctoral graduates was compounded by
certain characteristics of many of the new
doctoral graduates—characteristics that made
them less likely to select a faculty position in
higher education as a career choice (Pion,
Smith, & Tyler, 2003). Specifically, the study
found that graduates who displayed any of the
following characteristics were significantly
less likely to end up in higher education: One
earned a bachelor’s degree in an area other
than special education; delayed beginning
doctoral study for more than 7 years after the
completion of the master’s degree; listed something other than a faculty position as a career
goal at the onset of the doctoral program;
spent a significantly longer time earning the
doctoral degree; was not primarily supported
through assistantships, fellowships, or traineeships; and did not relocate to accept a position
following graduation. An individual’s age—
both at the beginning of the doctoral program
and at graduation—contributed to the nonfaculty career choices. The average age of students
who started the doctoral program (36 years)
was equal to the age of the average assistant
professor of earlier decades (Smith & Lovett,
1987; Tyler, Smith, & Pion, 2003). Given that
the average age at graduation had increased to
40 years for the 1994–1998 doctoral graduates, the expectation of relocating a family to
accept a faculty position, which often paid less
than their current public school salaries, was
unappealing (Smith et al., 2001).
An interesting yet worrisome trend became
apparent when the faculty study team investigated the characteristics of students in the special education doctoral pipeline during the
spring semester of 1999. Although 44% of the
doctoral students cited a career in academe as
their preference, these same students exhibited
three characteristics more predictive of careers
outside of higher education (Tyler et al., 2003).
First, they were older than the newly graduated
faculty members were when they first entered
doctoral programs, with ages more in line with
those who chose careers outside higher education. Second, only 36% of those with plans
to work in academe relocated to begin their
doctoral study. Finally, these students reported
more dependency on outside jobs to support
their studies and less support through assistantships, fellowships, or traineeships.
Recommendations From the 2001 Study
In light of these findings, the project’s study
team, stakeholders, policy makers, and researchers made recommendations to improve the
supply-and-demand imbalance of new doctorates
to open faculty positions (Smith et al., 2001;
Smith et al., 2003). One important recommendation was to take steps to increase the capacity
of the nation’s doctoral programs—namely, that
both the number of programs and the size of the
doctoral student bodies be increased. Programs
where course work composed only special education minors or emphasis areas were encouraged to increase the number of course and
seminar offerings, and the team suggested that
entirely new doctoral programs be developed.
Also, because the study revealed that many doctoral programs had few students, the team suggested that small and large programs alike could
accommodate more students, which would
eventually produce more graduates to meet the
demand for new faculty.
Another recommendation was to recruit
students who specifically possess those characteristics that are indicators of assuming
careers in academe. Such actions would mean
that younger applicants would be recruited, as
would those with clear aspirations for careers
in academe. Students who were willing to relocate for doctoral study could also receive
special assistance (e.g., moving allowances,
reimbursement for relocation expenses) as part
of the recruitment process. Finally, of the
stakeholder groups considering the implication
of the study’s findings, the major recommendation was for Congress to appropriate more
funding toward the personnel preparation
agenda for special education and for the OSEP
to allocate additional funding to its leadership
preparation initiative (Smith et al., 2001).
36
Impact of the 2001 Study
on Education Policy
Since the release of the Special Education
Faculty Shortage Study and the ensuing publications, the supply-and-demand imbalance of
new doctoral graduates and special education
faculty became apparent to the field and policy makers alike (Pion et al., 2003; Sindelar &
Rosenberg, 2003; Smith et al., 2003; Smith,
Pion, & Tyler, 2004). It is now well acknowledged that a shortage of special education faculty does contribute greatly to a shortage of
special education teachers and other service
providers, ultimately producing a negative
effect on the quality of services provided to
students with disabilities and their families.
For example, in the Senate committee reports
from 2002 to 2005 (Nos. 107-84, 107-216,
108-81, and 108-345), Congress expressed
concern about the shortage of special education faculty and teachers, specifically called
out the connection in Public Law No. 108447, and directed that federal funds be allocated to increase the supply of both teachers
and faculty: “The Committee continues to be
particularly concerned about the shortages of
qualified special education teachers and of
higher education faculty to train those teachers. It intends that these funds be used to
address both shortages” (Senate Committee
Report No. 108-345).
Concerns about the faculty shortage in special education were also called out in the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005 as
well as the Individuals With Disabilities
Improvement Act of 2004. Such congressional
concern resulted in the retention the OSEP’s
Leadership Preparation Program under section
664(d) of the law with an increase in the
appropriations. In fiscal year 2000, while the
Special Education Faculty Shortage Study was
being conducted, the amount of funds dedicated to leadership preparation by the OSEP
was $10,713,844. In fiscal year 2002, the year
after the study was concluded and hill briefings
were being held, the appropriation for leadership preparation increased to $13,020,037,
continually increased to a high of $20,607,794
in fiscal year 2006, and dropped to $17,617,094
in fiscal year 2008. These additional funds
supported more doctoral projects, resulting in
more doctoral students being trained to assume
leadership roles in special education.
The Special Education Faculty Shortage
Study stimulated other researchers to consider
the issues of a faculty shortage in special education and some to conduct studies of their
own. For example, the connection between a
shortage of faculty and a shortage of teachers
caught the attention of the press (e.g., Temkin,
2002). Researchers began to investigate special education faculty shortages in their own
states, such as California (Evans et al.,
2005), whereas others studied the relationship between federal funding on the recruitment of students into doctoral programs
(Wasburn-Moses & Therrien, 2008).
Some 10 years after the initial study, many
questions remain about special education
doctoral programs, the students who enroll in
these programs, and the paths that graduates
take. Except for the increase in the overall
funding for the OSEP leadership preparation
initiative just discussed, we do not know
whether changes have occurred in how doctoral students are recruited, what funding patterns are used to support them during their
doctoral studies, and what curriculum is
offered in their programs. We also do not
know whether changes, if they occurred, had
the desired effects. For these reasons, a new
needs assessment of special education doctoral training programs is underway. Its purpose is to determine the impact that special
education doctoral programs have on the
nation’s teacher preparation efforts.
The Special Education
Faculty Needs Assessment
In 2007, the OSEP funded a new project to
assess the trends in leadership development
and to determine whether the nation has the
capacity to produce a sufficient supply of
qualified special education teachers. The primary focus of this evaluation effort is on the
production of new special education doctoral
37
Smith et al.
graduates who assume faculty positions. It is
therefore assessing both the supply and the
demand for new special education faculty.
This evaluation effort comprises six major
components, each with a specific purpose:
1. assess the status and capacity of special education doctoral programs;
2. assess the demographics, career
goals, and characteristics of current
special education doctoral students
who are “in the pipeline”;
3. determine career paths, demographics, and other characteristics of 10
years of special education doctoral
graduates;
4. determine basic characteristics of
university-based special education
teacher education programs (e.g., staffing patterns, projected retirements);
5. determine the completion rates of
doctoral students supported by an
OSEP leadership project initiated in
fiscal year 2000, fiscal year 2001, or
fiscal year 2002; and
6. compare the OSEP financial assistance packages (e.g., stipends,
tuition, educational costs, health
insurance) with those provided
through other federal agencies’ doctoral training grants programs.
At the time of this publication, with the
exception of Task 4, data collection efforts for
this needs assessment effort have been completed, and data analyses for Tasks 1 through 3
are underway. Updates will be posted continually on the Special Education Faculty Needs
Assessment’s Web site (http://www.cgu.edu/
sefna), and the final results will be published
in future editions of this journal.
Once the Special Education Faculty Needs
Assessment’s work is complete, the nation
will have data from two points in time (the
2001 Special Education Faculty Shortage
Study and the 2009 Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment study) that will provide a better picture of the current state of
special education doctoral training, as well as
how it has changed over the last decade. It is
premature to suggest future research priorities. However, once the final analyses of the
Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment
data are complete, policy makers and stakeholders should have the necessary information upon which to inform future policy
decisions and suggest research agendas. For
current and updated information about the
Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment
project, visit http://www.cgu.edu/sefna.
Summary and Next Steps
We know much more about the special education leadership landscape than we did before
the initiation of the Special Education Faculty Shortage Study in 1999. We now understand that federal policy and funding have a
significant influence on the quality and quantity of special education teachers and faculty.
We better understand the connections between
the supply and demand of faculty and the supply and demand for teachers, and vice versa;
that is, if there is a shortage of special education teachers, there is shortage in the supply
pipeline for future faculty. We also know that
today’s teachers face more rigorous standards
and must be knowledgeable about an everwidening range of instructional and behavioral interventions and techniques. These
interventions and techniques are discovered
through research primarily conducted by our
nation’s special education faculty. The 2001
study revealed a shortage of these same faculty members, and the Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment study will provide
information about whether a faculty shortage
still exists. This new effort will also shed light
on whether the nation has the capacity to
increase the role of special education faculty
to better prepare general educators to serve
students with disabilities.
Pre-Service Training
for General Education Teachers
Recent policy changes require greater knowledge about inclusive processes and practices,
such as response to intervention, positive
behavioral interventions and supports, and
38
universal design for learning. These requirements affect not only special education teachers but general educators as well. Most
students with disabilities spend the majority of
their school days in inclusive settings; therefore, all teachers must be prepared to meet
their academic and social needs. How well do
our current teacher training programs meet
this need? The federal government’s accountability office (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009) recently released a report
about the preparedness of teachers to work
with students with disabilities and with
English learners. Included in the report are the
following findings: Most elementary and
secondary education majors are required to
take at least one course that includes some
content about inclusive education; fewer are
required to take a separate course about students with disabilities (73% of elementary and
67% of secondary programs); even less have
field experiences with these students (58% of
elementary and 51% of secondary programs);
finally, the most common field experience
includes only observation of special needs
students with no instructional component. It
should not be surprising that new general
education teachers feel underprepared to work
with students with disabilities in their classes
(Duncan, 2009; National Comprehensive
Center for Teacher Quality, 2008). In line with
this information and the current economic
conditions, our recommendation is that the
nation’s teacher preparation enterprise be
rethought and revised.
In a recent speech at Teachers College,
Columbia University, U.S. secretary of education Arne Duncan (2009) voiced similar
concerns:
Yet, by almost any standard, many if
not most of the nation’s 1,450 schools,
colleges, and departments of education
are doing a mediocre job of preparing
teachers for the realities of the 21st century classroom. America’s universitybased teacher preparation programs
need revolutionary change—not evolutionary tinkering. (p. 1)
Specifically, Duncan called out three great
challenges that fuel the imperative for reconceptualization of the teacher preparation
curriculum:
1. prepare students to live and work
in the information age,
2. successfully teach all students so
that they reach their full potential,
and
3. produce a sufficient number of
well-prepared new teachers to
replace retiring baby boomers—
nearly one third of the teaching
force (up to 1 million teachers)
within the next 4 to 5 years.
IHEs are by far the largest producers of new
teachers, preparing some 95% of the supply
(Duncan, 2009). The burden of meeting the
demand for more teachers may prove in itself
to be overwhelming, but these new teachers
will need different types of training programs
because they will need to possess skill sets different from those of previous generations of
teachers. We believe that these contexts will
necessitate new and innovative models for
teacher training and the delivery of services to
children. The nation cannot continue to train
teachers in the same way, whether in general
education or in special education, and it cannot afford to have an underqualified teaching
force, one ill prepared to meet the educational
needs of every student.
Some teacher preparation programs’ faculty and administrators are rethinking the
teacher preparation efforts at their universities. They are seeking to increase trainees’
knowledge and skills in working with students
with disabilities, namely through the following actions: hiring more faculty with proven
experience in working with exceptional students, adapting existing courses, increasing
collaboration among those with experience
in working with exceptional students, creating
new field experiences, and developing new
courses (U.S. Government Accountability
Office, 2009). To whom will the responsibilities for these revisions in training fall? When
39
Smith et al.
students with disabilities are the focal point,
most general education faculty lack the knowledge, background, and experience to effectively provide relevant instruction. The use
of special education faculty members often
becomes the solution. For example, when elementary and secondary education majors are
required to take one course about working
with students with disabilities, a special education faculty member usually teaches that
course. We believe that as more content and
field experiences are added to the general education curriculum, special education faculty
will be relied on more frequently.
It is unclear whether sufficient numbers of
doctoral-level faculty are available to meet this
additional workload, especially given the challenges involved in addressing the shortages of
special education teachers. Many special education programs are currently turning to adjunct
and master’s-level instructors to meet the
instructional demands for their undergraduate
courses, citing as justification departmental
budgetary constraints and the inability to fill
faculty positions. In short, there may be no special education faculty to spare. A shortage of
special education faculty will hamper the capacity of higher education to meet a critical new
need: to prepare general education teachers to
effectively instruct students with disabilities.
The Role of the Federal Government
The U.S. Department of Education can play a
more significant part in addressing this challenge. Currently, 10 grant programs that fund
general teacher preparation programs are
administered through four offices of the department. Within these federal programs, more
emphasis could be provided to ensure that future
generations of general educators are better prepared to meet the needs of students with disabilities who are learning in inclusive settings.
Other examples of how the federal government can make a difference abound. For
example, to assist with the enhancement of
the teacher preparation curriculum, the OSEP
invests in a center that provides free online
resources and instructional units about the
education of students with disabilities in inclusive settings. These instructional materials are
designed for use in college courses and professional development activities. Called out in
the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s
report (2009), the IRIS Center for Training
Enhancements (www.iriscenter.com) provides
one facet of the solution to the challenge of
bringing new knowledge about effective
practices to traditional course work. Clearly,
the federal government should provide funding for more innovative programs that provide
incentives and resources for systems change
in teacher preparation efforts and facilitate
coordination of dissemination activities.
The federal government also has an important role to play in fostering change in programs that prepare the next generation of
college faculty. It can initiate a national conversation about leadership preparation and its
implications for teacher training. We strongly
encourage the OSEP to convene a leadership
preparation summit—a meeting of national
experts and stakeholders. Such action was successful in the past and, we believe, would be
again. In 2004, the OSEP commissioned the
Blue Ribbon Task Force Committee (2004) to
examine its leadership personnel preparation
competition. Although the group’s primary
charge was to determine quality indicators for
use in the competition’s criteria, the task force
recommended that the OSEP increase support
for leadership preparation by awarding more
projects. This action was taken and is possibly
the explanation for the increase in the number of special education doctoral graduates
(National Opinion Research Center, 2009) and
the reversal of a 20-year downward trend.
The work to be conducted at a new national
summit about leadership preparation is important. We believe that it is critical that this summit be called soon. Policy makers, stakeholders,
university faculty, and others need to address
and make recommendations about
•• increasing the supply of special education faculty,
40
•• meeting the demand for expanded
roles for special education faculty in
the preparation of general educators,
•• revising the curriculum of doctoral
preparation programs to increase the
knowledge and skills of the next
generation of teacher educators,
•• determining the gaps in the current
knowledge base and developing a
research agenda, and
•• creating a national plan of action.
Present federal policy makers have already
assumed a major role in the national teacher
education agenda. They have instigated widespread educational reform and have cleared
the path for subsequent initiatives. We are
confident that a comprehensive national effort
can produce the necessary changes to ensure
that a sufficient supply of faculty is available
to address the shortage of special education
teachers and the expanded roles of general
educators in meeting the educational needs of
students with disabilities and their families.
Now is the time is for action.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of
interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Financial Disclosure/Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article: The work presented in this article was partly
supported by the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, through the
Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment project
(No. H325U070001), which is awarded to Claremont
Graduate University. The contents of this article do
not necessarily reflect views or policies of the
Department of Education, nor does mention of trade
names, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement by the U.S. government.
References
Bain, A., Lancaster, J., Zundans, L., & Parkes, R. J.
(2009). Embedding evidence-based practice in
pre-service teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 215-225.
Blue Ribbon Task Force Committee. (2004). Draft:
Guidelines for OSEP leadership program competition applications. Washington, DC: Office
of Special Education Programs and the Higher
Education Consortium for Special Education.
Retrieved December 14, 2009, from http://
www.cgu.edu/pages/5612.asp
Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. (2006). The chronic and
increasing shortage of fully certified teachers
in special and general education. Exceptional
Children, 72, 443-460.
Boe, E., Sunderland, B., & Cook, L. (2006, November). The supply of teachers from traditional
and alternative routes of preparation. Presentation at Teacher Education Division Conference,
San Diego, CA.
Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S.,
Michelli, N., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). Complex
by design: Investigating pathways into teaching
in New York City schools. Journal of Teacher
Education, 57, 155-166.
Bradshaw, D., Reinke, W., Brown, L., Bevans, K.,
& Leaf, P. (2008). Implementation of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and
supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education and
Treatment of Children, 31, 1-26.
Brownell, M. J. Rosenberg, M. S., Sindelar, P. T., &
Smith, D. D. (2004). Teacher education: Toward
a qualified teacher for every classroom. In
A. M. Sorells, H. J. Rieth, & P. T. Sindelar (Eds.),
Critical issues in special education (pp. 243-257).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). Occupational
outlook handbook, 2008–2009 edition: Teachers—special education. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor. Retrieved December 15,
2009, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos070.
htm
California Department of Education. (2009). Dataquest analysis of California students, staff, and
demographics. Retrieved on September 7, 2009,
from http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SpecEd/
SpecEd1.asp?cChoice=SpecEd1&cYear=2006/07
&cLevel=State&cTopic=SpecEd&myTimeFrame
=S&submit1=Submit&ReptCycle=December
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2007).
Summary of 2007 national summit on universal
design for learning working groups. Wakefield,
MA: Author.
41
Smith et al.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2005, April). Correlation
between teachers and student achievement. Presentation at the American Education Research
Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006a). Constructing 21stcentury teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 57, 300-314.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006b, November). Developing a profession of teaching. Presentation at
CalTEACH Annual Faculty Professional Conference, San Jose, CA.
Duncan, A. (2009). Teacher preparation: Reforming
the uncertain profession. Remarks of secretary
Arne Duncan at Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved December 14, 2009, from http://
www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10222009
.html
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub.
L. No. 94-142 (1975).
Evans, S., Eliot, M., Hood, J., Driggs, M., Mori, A.,
& Johnson, T. (2005). Assessing the special education faculty shortage: The crisis in California—
A statewide study of the professoriate. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 32, 7-21.
Finn, C. E., Jr., Rotherham, A. J., & Hokanson,
C. R., Jr. (Eds.). (2001). Conclusions and
principles for reform. In C. E. Finn Jr., A.
J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson Jr. (Eds.),
Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259-288). Washington, DC: Thomas
B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive
Policy Institute.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Vaughn, S. (Eds.). (2008).
Response to intervention: A framework for reading educators. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Fuchs, D., & Young, C. L. (2006). On the irrelevance
of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to
reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73,
8-30.
Futernick, K. (2007). A possible dream: Retaining California teachers so all students learn.
Sacramento, CA: Center for Teacher Quality.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J.,
Santoro, L., Linan-Thompon, S., et al. (2009).
Assisting students struggling with reading:
Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A
practice guide (NCEE No. 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education.
Retrieved December 14, 2009, from http://ies
.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
Guha, R., Shields, P., Tiffany-Morales, J., Bland,
J., & Campbell, A. (2008). California’s teaching force: Key issues and trends. Santa Cruz,
CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and
Learning.
Higher Education Opportunity Act, Pub. L. No. 110315 (2008).
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Pub.
L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37 (1997).
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118
Stat. 2647.
IRIS Center for Training Enhancements. (2009).
Universal design for learning: Creating a
learning environment that challenges and
engages all students. Retrieved on September
4, 2009, from http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt
.edu/udl/chalcycle.htm
Kleinhammer-Tramill, P. J. (2001). The federal role
in preparation of special education personnel:
An historical perspective. AACTE Policy Perspectives, 2(3), 1-8.
Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). In harm’s
way: How undercertified teachers hurt their students. Educational Leadership, 60, 34-39.
Lyon, G. R., & Weiser, B. (2009). Teacher knowledge, instructional expertise, and the development
of reading proficiency. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 42, 475-480.
McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., & Flippin, S. S. (2004).
The supply of and demand for special education teachers: A review of research regarding the
nature of the chronic shortage of special education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 5-21.
Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., &
Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American
Journal of Evaluation, 24, 315-340.
National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. (2008). Lessons learned: New teachers talk
about their jobs, challenges, and long-range
plans. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
December 15, 2009, from http://www.tqsource
.org/publications/LessonsLearned3.pdf
National Opinion Research Center. (2009). Graduation trends of special education doctorates.
Chicago: Author.
42
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No.
107-110.
Noell, G. H., Porter, B. A., Patt, R. M., & Dahir, A.
(2008). Value added assessment of teacher
preparation in Louisiana: 2004–2005 to 2006–
2007. Retrieved December 14, 2009, from
http://regents.state.la.us/Academic/TE/2008/
Final%20Value-Added%20Report%20(12.02
.08).pdf
Office of Special Education Programs. (2009).
Application for new grants under the Individuals
With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Fiscal
year 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
Personnel Improvement Center. (2009). The
National Center to Improve the Recruitment
and Retention of Qualified Personnel for Children With Disabilities at the National Association for State Directors of Special Education
(NASDSE). Retrieved December 14, 2009,
from http://www.nasdse.org/Projects/Personnel
ImprovementCenter/tabid/414/Default.aspx
Pion, G. M., Smith, D. D., & Tyler, N. C. (2003).
Career choices of recent doctorates in special
education: Their implications for addressing
faculty shortages. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 182-193.
Rabinowitz S., Sato, E., Case, B. J., Benitez, D., &
Jordon, K. (2008). Alternate assessment for special education students in the Southwest region
states. Received December 14, 2009, from http://
www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rstudy/39
Robb, S. M. (2007). Claremont Graduate University’s PULSE Pipeline Project to Prepare Urban
Leaders in Special Education: Phase Two—
Moderate and Severe Disabilities. Claremont,
CA: Claremont Graduate University, School of
Educational Studies.
Rosenberg, M. S., Boyer, K. L., Sindelar, P. T., &
Misra, S. K. (2007). Alternative route programs
for certification in special education: Program
infrastructure, instructional delivery, and participant characteristics. Exceptional Children,
73, 224-241.
Samuels, C. A. (2007, October 31). “Universal
design” concept pushed for education. Ed Week,
p. 1.
Schofer, R. (1962). Public Law 85-926. Unpublished manuscript.
Sindelar, P. T., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2003). The
demand for faculty in special education: A study
of searches conducted in 1997-98. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(3), 172-181.
Smith, D. D. (2009a). Briefing to the OSEP Leadership Team. Washington, DC: Office of Special
Education Programs.
Smith, D. D. (2009b). SEFNA brief: The federal
role in the preparation of special education doctorates [Unpublished report]. Claremont, CA:
Claremont Graduate University, Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment.
Smith, D. D., & Lovett, D. (1987). The supply and
demand of special education faculty members:
Will the supply meet the demand? Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 88-96.
Smith, D. D., Pion, G. M., & Tyler, N. C. (2004).
Leadership personnel in special education: Can
persistent shortages be resolved? In A. M. Sorells,
H. J. Rieth, & P. T. Sindelar (Eds.), Critical issues
in special education (pp. 258-276). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Smith, D. D., Pion, G. M., Tyler, N. C., & Gilmore, R.
(2003). Doctoral programs in special education:
The nation’s supplier. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 26, 172-181.
Smith, D. D., Pion, G. M., Tyler, N. C., Sindelar,
P., & Rosenberg, M. (2001). Final report: The
study of special education leadership personnel
with particular attention to the professoriate
(No. H920T97006-100A). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Smith, D. D., & Robb. S. M. (2009). SEFNA brief:
Follow-up of doctoral students supported by
OSEP funded leadership preparation projects
initiated in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 [Unpublished report]. Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate University, Special Education Faculty Needs
Assessment.
Smith, D. D., & Salzberg, C. (1994). The shortage
of special education faculty: Toward a better
understanding. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 17, 52-61.
Teacher Education Division. (1987). National directory of special education personnel preparation
43
Smith et al.
programs. Reston, VA: National Information
Center for Children and Youth With Handicaps.
Temkin, J. (2002, November 10). Special education
shortage starts at universities. Chicago Tribune.
Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com
Tyler, N. C., Smith, D. D., & Pion, G. M. (2003).
Doctoral students in special education: Characteristics and career aspirations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 194-205.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Assistance
to states for the education of children with disabilities program and the early intervention program for infants and toddlers with disabilities:
Final rule. Federal Register, 34(CRF Parts 300
and 301).
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Part B,
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act,
implementation of FAPE requirements, 2007
[Data Analysis System, OMB No. 1820-0517;
data updated as of July 15, 2008]. Washington,
DC: Office of Special Education Programs.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Teacher
shortage areas nationwide listing 1990–91
thru 2009–10: March 2009 [OMB No. 18400595]. Washington, DC: Office of Postsecondary Education Policy and Budget Development
Staff.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (2009).
Teacher preparation: Multiple federal education
offices support teacher preparation for instructing students with disabilities and English language learners, but systematic department-wide
coordination could enhance this assistance.
Washington, DC: Author.
Wasburn-Moses, L., & Therrien, W. J. (2008). The
impact of leadership personnel preparation
grants on the doctoral student population in special education. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 31, 65-76.
West, J. (2009). Increasing access to higher education for students with disabilities and strengthening the preparation of professionals who instruct
them: The Higher Education Opportunity Act of
2008 policy and practice. Advances in Learning
and Behavioral Disabilities, 22, 189-225.
West, J., & Whitby, P. (2008) Federal policy and
the education of students with disabilities: Progress and the path forward. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 41(3), 1-16.
Bios
Deborah Deutsch Smith, Professor of Education,
directs the Special Education Needs Assessment
project at Claremont Graduate University. She is
the Co-Principal Investigator of The IRIS Center
for Training Enhancements and directs IRIS-West,
the services branch of the center. She is the recipient of the University of Washington’s 2009 College of Education Distinguished Alumni Award.
Susan Mortorff Robb, Professor of Education,
coordinates the special education doctoral program
emphasis and directs an OSEP personnel preparation project at Claremont Graduate University. She
is a long-standing member of California’s Department of Education Special Education Leadership
Team, is the Outreach Director for The IRIS Center,
and is the SEFNA Study Team for the Special Education Teacher Education Program component.
Jane West is Sr. Vice President for Policy, Programs and Professional Issues at the American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
West has an ongoing keen interest in special education policy and personnel preparation. She holds
a Ph.D. from the University of Maryland and
served in the U.S. Senate as the Staff Director for
the Subcommittee on Disability Policy under the
chairmanship of Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (I-CT).
Naomi Chowdhuri Tyler, Assistant Professor of
the Practice in Special Education and Co-Principal
Investigator of the IRIS Center for Training
Enhancements at Peabody College of Vanderbilt
University, directs the Center’s efforts in the development of free online materials about working
with students with disabilities in inclusive settings.
She is the SEFNA Study Team Leader who coordinates the project’s work relating to doctoral students in the special education leadership pipeline.

Teacher Education and Special Teacher Education: The Journal of the

Transcription

Similar documents

94546 careerlink 3x10.crtr

Employee Connection - Center For Social Change

greeting card catalogue

Ambulant Betreutes Wohnen – ein Erfolgsmodel?

Call for Proposals LSF001 - the Lino Spiteri Foundation

bowling challenge - Friends of We Care

Brotoloc South Brochure

Children with Disabilities

O R

IPAT slides 2