Early Childhood Special Education.

Workplace Realities

Course work and Field-based practica do not meet the needs of the early intervention and early childhood special education community.

In the past decade, interest in infants and young children with developmental vulnerabilities has increased. Research in the areas of neurological imaging and early learning has led to growing recognition that a child's early experiences have a marked influence on the structure and physiology of the developing brain (Anastasiow, 1990; Fox, Calkins, & Bell, 1994; Mills, Coffey-Corina, & Neville, 1994). Other evidence indicates that appropriate intervention with young children with special needs can facilitate development and enhance learning (Gomby, Larner, Stevenson, Lewit, & Behrman, 1995). This knowledge has served as an impetus for the development and/or expansion of early intervention and early childhood special education programs for children ages birth to 5. As this expansion occurred, however, communities were faced with the challenge of appropriately staffing these programs. Inadequate staffing and lack of qualified personnel have been documented at national, state, and local levels (Garrett, 1997; Hebbeler, 1995).

An increase in university-based personnel preparation programs is one response to this personnel shortage (Hebbeler, 1995). Increasing the number of preservice education programs alone, however, is not sufficient to meet community needs. Universities have been criticized for not adequately reflecting the realities of the workplace and, therefore, not preparing personnel to function effectively in real-world situations (Winton & McCollum, 1997). Such criticisms point to the necessity for university faculty to rethink traditional personnel preparation.

Evolving Contexts of Personnel Preparation

Traditionally, colleges and universities have provided preparation through course work and field-based practica for individuals seeking to enter a specific profession, and discipline-specific study at the graduate level. This approach does not meet the needs of the early intervention and early childhood special education community. The current personnel shortage is not merely an issue of induction-level preparation, nor is it a matter of providing more in-depth discipline-specific training. In an examination of personnel shortages, Hebbeler (1995) found not only insufficient numbers of professionals to provide services, but also some individuals who possess the appropriate credentials on paper yet lack the specialized knowledge and abilities to meet the unique, specific needs of infants, young children, and their families. As a result, even resource-rich environments may have a scarcity of appropriate services.

Despite substantial efforts to develop appropriate competencies through inservice education, a workshop approach often is a passive experience for participants and does not bring about change (Guskey, 1986; Sexton et al., 1996). Although traditional induction-type preparation may remain appropriate for a segment of the student population, colleges and universities need to revise their programs in order to address the priorities of non-traditional, working, early intervention and early childhood special education practitioners.

Personnel who desire or require additional preparation tend to fall into three groups: non-certified personnel currently working in early intervention and early childhood special education systems, licensed professionals without early pediatric and family experience, and early childhood educators working in inclusive settings. The first group comprises individuals currently classified as paraprofessionals. These individuals make up approximately 20 percent of the early intervention work force (Hebbeler, 1995) and includes individuals who have 4-year college degrees, but do not yet meet the highest standard for their discipline (according to federal and state legislation) or for professional certification and licensure (Hebbeler, 1995). This point is particularly pertinent in Arizona, where less than one-sixth of the 655 teachers of young children with disabilities in the state meet all of the qualifications for a Standard Certificate (Arizona Department of Education, 1998). In addition, local school administrators have reported difficulty filling open positions with fully qualified personnel, and so they frequently hire teachers on an emergency basis (Garrett, 1997).

A second group that may seek additional professional preparation are clinical personnel, including physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, special educators, and nurses who already possess state licensure and certification. Although this group meets certain legal requirements, some individuals may have had limited preparation or experience in meeting the very special needs of a young pediatric population and their families (Bailey, Simeonsson, Yoder, & Huntington, 1990; Hebbeler, 1995).

The movement toward natural environments and inclusive services has had an impact on a third group of service providers. Early childhood educators and child development specialists are finding increasing numbers of children with developmental vulnerabilities in their child care settings and preschool groups. Therefore, they must accommodate the special needs of individual children and families, and collaborate with professionals from other disciplines.

Addressing Workplace Realities

This article describes the Concentration in Infants and Young Children within the M.Ed. in Special Education program at Arizona State University West (ASU West). The concentration, which prepares individuals to work with infants and young children with special needs and their families, addresses three critical service realities in early intervention and early childhood special education. The first reality is that early intervention and early childhood special education services represent an evolving professional specialization that is qualitatively different from the special education services provided to school-age populations, especially when it comes to creating an individualized, family-centered milieu for both the planning and delivery of services (Bailey, 1989; Fenichel & Eggbeer, 1991; Thorp & McCollum, 1994; Winton & McCollum, 1997). The second workplace reality is that practitioners must develop skills in interdisciplinary and interagency collaboration in order to work effectively in the environments in which infants and young children with special needs function (Garland & Frank, 1997; Kelley, 1996; McCollum, Rowan, & Thorp, 1994). The third reality is that the student population in early intervention and early childhood special education is non-traditional, including individuals who are already working with infants, preschoolers, and their families (Fenichel & Eggbeer, 1991; Hebbeler, 1995; McCollum & Bailey, 1991; Winton & McCollum, 1997).

In developing the Concentration in Infants and Young Children, ASU West established a community-university partnership and cross-unit linkages to implement a conventional program development process. The process consisted of four steps: conducting a community-based needs assessment, developing a platform, designing a prototype, and conducting a pilot. Each step was characterized by specific development and formative evaluation strategies (see Table 1). This process resulted in several innovative features.

Component      Development Activities      Formative Evaluation

Needs          * Review Literature         * Membership List
 Assessment    * Review Standards            Analysis
               * Conduct Community         * Expert Feedback
                 Interviews                  (AZEIP, ADE)
               * Conduct Focus Groups

Platform       * Develop Outcome           * Field Review
                 Compentencies
               * Develop Design            * Internal Review
                 Specifications

Prototype      * Determine Course          * Syllabi Analysis
                 Content
               * Review Syllabi for        * Course x Competency
                 Existing Courses            Matrix
               * Identify New Courses      * Course x Standards
               * Identify Concentration      Matrix
                 Structure                 * Student Outcomes x
               * Develop Syllabi for         Evaluation Measure
                 New Courses                 x Standards Matrix
               * Identify                  * Key Stakeholder Review
                 Cross-Displinary            (Assistant Dean,
               * Elective Areas              Graduate Studies
                                             Advisory Committee,
                                             General Faculty,
                                             Cross-Disciplinary
                                             Faculty, Library
                                             Liaison)

Pilot          * Recruit Students          * Course Feedback Forms
               * Identify Faculty          * Student Learning
                                             Assessments
               * Offer Courses             * Program Feedback Forms
                                             (Students and Faculty)
                                           * Employer Survey

Table 1: Curriculum Development and Evaluation

The Individualized Student Learning Plan (ISLP)

During community-based needs assessment activities, community representatives agreed that personnel preparation in early intervention and early childhood special education should model the individualized, responsive, client-centered practices that early childhood professionals are expected to employ when working with children and families (Garrett, 1997). As a result, the Concentration in Infants and Young Children sought to create opportunities for students to experience the type of individualized, client-centered milieu that we ask them to establish with children and families. This was accomplished through the development of an ISLP for each student.

To facilitate the development of each student's ISLP, the concentration faculty developed BASE, a four-step advising model. BASE is analogous to the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) process in which families, in partnership with service coordinators, examine current priorities, resources, and concerns; establish a plan to meet desired outcomes; and engage in continued evaluation of progress. In the BASE process, students (in partnership with an academic adviser) individually assess their own backgrounds and professional goals, analyze their current competencies against recommended practices in eight key areas, establish their Individualized Student Learning Plan, and engage in ongoing evaluation and reflection. The BASE Model follows the premise that after experiencing an individualized approach to planning, students are better able to view the process from the client's perspective, and can identify the strengths of including clients as partners and decision makers in the process. Table 2 provides an overview of the BASE process used for ISLP development and evaluation, while Appendix A presents one student's worksheet for the Background Assessment phase of the process.

B    Background Assessment of professional goals,
     educational background, and professional
     experiences

A    Analysis of current knowledge, skills, and abilities
     in comparison to professional standards

S    Selection of appropriate course experiences
     and practica to meet professional goals and
     desired learning outcomes

E    Evaluation and self-reflection of progress

Table 2: BASE Model of ISLP Development

An analysis of current knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA Analysis) constitutes the second phase of the BASE process. A set of Concentration Outcome Standards is critical to this step. Program developers conducted an in-depth analysis of professional standards from the Arizona Department of Education, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), and the Division for Early Childhood (DEC), as well as extensive community-based field reviews. The resulting standards covered the areas of policies and research, typical and atypical development, family and culture, assessment and planning, developmentally appropriate programs and practices, intervention strategies, teaming and collaboration, and leadership. Students use these Concentration Outcome Standards to complete their KSA Analysis (see Appendix B for one page of a student's KSA Analysis Worksheet).

Following assessment and analysis of their goals and current capacities, students complete the selection phase of BASE by developing a written ISLP, which includes their goals for graduate study, their enrollment priority, a set of selected courses, and some preliminary ideas regarding appropriate practica experiences. (See Appendix C for a sample ISLP.) Goals include both Professional Goals (e.g., to complete the course work necessary for certification in Early Childhood Special Education by the Arizona Department of Education) and Learning Outcomes (e.g., to increase competency in planning and conducting family-guided assessment). The student then determines the enrollment option that will best help meet the goals. The concentration supports a variety of student preferences, including course work leading to a master's degree, a master's degree plus credential and/or certification, credential or certification alone, or professional development not leading to a degree or credential. Following selection of an enrollment option, students, with adviser support, complete development of the ISLP by selecting from a set of course offerings and identifying needed practica experiences. By using an individualized standards-based approach, a student and faculty adviser can select a sequence of courses and design practica experiences tailored to meet the student's needs.

The final phase of the BASE Model involves student evaluation and self-reflection of progress as the ISLP is implemented. Students accomplish this step by regularly reviewing and updating the KSA Analysis Worksheet and by annually reviewing the ISLP with a faculty adviser. Students also use the KSA Analysis to guide their development of a professional portfolio that they present as one element of their graduation requirements.

A unique design feature of the BASE Model is its use of an electronic forum in conjunction with the more traditional face-to-face advising process. Individuals with Internet access can learn about the ASU West Concentration in Infants and Young Children and begin the background assessment of their professional goals, educational background, and professional experiences, as well as the initial analysis of current knowledge, skills, and abilities in comparison to professional standards. A structured, electronic work form allows prospective students to complete the Background Assessment Worksheet and KSA Analysis prior to meeting with an adviser. The BASE Model electronic forum provides for the production of background assessment and analysis profiles, which can be used by the student and adviser to plan the student's ISLP. It also allows for efficient electronic communication with advisers, teachers, and other support staff, and is sensitive to the time constraints of working students. Finally, the ISLP Web page also offers links into other pertinent databases and support sites found on the World Wide Web.

Critical Themes

Use of an Individualized Student Learning Plan means that students are enrolled in a variety of course configurations. Consequently, it is important to maintain the integrity of the educational experience. This goal is accomplished by embedding the following critical themes into each of the course experiences: capability and resiliency orientation toward children and families (Fenichel & Eggbeer, 1991; Garrett, 1997); normalized approaches and principles (Cripe, Hanline, & Daley, 1997; Kontos & Diamond, 1997; McCollum et al., 1994); cross-cultural competency (Barrera & Kramer, 1997; Sexton, Lobman, Constans, Snyder, & Ernest, 1997); family-centered principles and practices (McBride & Brotherson, 1997; McCollum et al., 1994); collaboration and cross-disciplinary teaming (Garland & Frank, 1997; Kelley, 1996; McCollum et al., 1994); ethical issues and considerations (DEC Task Force on Recommended Practices, 1993; Garrett, 1997); and self-reflective practices (Fenichel & Eggbeer, 1991). These themes are incorporated in a variety of ways, depending upon each theme's interface with a specific course (see Table 3). In some instances, themes are stated explicitly in the course objectives. At other times, individual themes are addressed through specific course assignments, readings, or in-class activities.

Theme: Ethical Considerations and Issues

Course                 Assignment/          Relevant Aspects
                       Activity

SPE 540:              Philosophy       Identification and analysis
Family-Centered       Statement        of roles responsibilities,
Practices                              locus of control,
                                       professional boundaries;
                                       Personal reflection on
                                       ethical issues

SPE 541:              Consultation     Review of NAEYC and CEC Code
Consultation          Plan             of Ethical Conduct; Written
Frameworks and                         discussion of how plan
Issues                                 reflects these codes

ECD/SPE 542:          Policy           Analysis of procedural
Systems, Policies,    Analysis         safeguards to protect the
and Program                            rights of children and
Practices for                          families; Analysis of the
and Young Children                     applications of safeguards
                                       based on interview and
                                       observation

ECD/SPE 543:          Case Study       Review of ethical standards
Issues in                              from the Society for
Development                            Research in Child
                                       Development; Development and
                                       implementation of an
                                       informed consent procedure

ECD/SPE 544:          Assessment       Identification of pertinent
Assessment and        Project          NAEYC and CEC ethical
Evaluation of                          standards; Informed consent;
Infants and Young                      Discussion of
Children                               nondiscriminatory practices

ECD/SPE 545:          Asocial          Written critique of the
Curriculum,           Encounters       methods the teacher used
Methods,              Observation      to protect the dignity of
Technology, and                        children when addressing
Adaptations for                        asocial behaviors
Infants and
Young Children

ECD/SPE 546:          Home Language    Written discussion of
Communication,        Project          ethical issues when working
Language, and                          with families for whom
Early Literacy                         English is not the home
                                       language; Description of
                                       strategies for addressing
                                       ethical issues

ECD/SPE 547:          Case Study       Identification of pertinent
Supporting Motor                       NAEYC and CEC ethical
Development                            standards; Informed consent

Collaboration

Cross-disciplinary collaboration is a critical workplace skill for early childhood professionals (Garland & Frank, 1997; Kelley, 1996; McCollum et al., 1994). While discussed, this type of collaboration is not often practiced in university settings. To ensure cross-disciplinary and collaborative experiences for students, the Concentration in Infants and Young Children uses collaborative program development strategies, targets students with different undergraduate backgrounds, and establishes a cross-disciplinary emphasis requirement for the master's degree.

The Concentration in Infants and Young Children at ASU West is a partnership between the Early Childhood Education Program and the Special Education Program. Community representatives, as well as faculty from the Colleges of Education, Arts and Sciences, and Human Services, provided input during program development.

To ensure that students experience some of the interdisciplinary interactions they would encounter as practitioners, potential students are targeted from a variety of undergraduate backgrounds that include early childhood education, special education, child development, and child psychology. This interdisciplinary enrollment, which is facilitated by the Individualized Student Learning Plan (ISLP) process, provides an opportunity for individuals from various backgrounds to interact on a regular basis. Specially designed course experiences give students multiple opportunities to engage in collaborative problem solving in a controlled and supportive environment.

Students enrolled in the master's degree option also must complete a cross-disciplinary emphasis requirement in which they identify an area of interest outside of the concentration and take 6-9 credits of course work in this area. This requirement provides opportunities for students to examine issues from broad disciplinary perspectives and engage in dialog with students and faculty from diverse backgrounds. Faculty from a variety of different programs worked with the curriculum developers to identify 10 cross-disciplinary emphasis areas to support, enhance, or extend student knowledge of infants, young children, and their families.

Non-Traditional Students 

The needs assessment conducted as part of program development activities revealed that the potential student population was composed largely of individuals who were already employed in early intervention, early childhood education, and early childhood special education settings (Garrett, 1997). ASU West's Concentration in Infants and Young Children addresses the needs of these non-traditional students in three ways: through the ISLP, which tailors the student's learning experiences to their professional and learning goals; by designing goal-oriented, relevant, practical, and experiential course work that integrates class information with workplace reality (Knowles, 1984; Rogers & Freiberg, 1994; Taylor & Marienau, 1995); and through accessible scheduling of courses.

Working students bring a wealth of practical experience to university courses. The Concentration in Infants and Young Children utilizes this experience in several ways. Each course in the concentration integrates theory and practice by combining university-based classes with field-based assignments and projects (DEC Task Force on Recommended Practices, 1993). Students use their workplace setting as the context in which to complete many of these field-based assignments.

This not only makes efficient use of student time, but also facilitates in-depth thinking and analysis. By completing problem-based assignments in a familiar environment, students have the opportunity to examine the complexity and interaction of contextual factors in a way that cannot be duplicated through hypothetical scenarios or episodic involvement at a practicum site. Because many students are employed in year-round positions, the concentration also provides an option for on-the-job internships during which students can acquire and refine competencies with university supervisor support. Use of a standards-based ISLP ensures appropriately rigorous experiences, while meeting the individual needs of non-traditional, working students.

Scheduling also plays an important role in meeting the needs of working students. All concentration courses are scheduled in the evening, since most working practitioners are employed during the day. In addition, ASU West uses a compressed, block scheduling format in which courses are offered one evening per week for an eight-week block. This arrangement allows students to complete two courses in a 16-week semester while making a time commitment of only one evening per week. Additional scheduling options, such as summer institutes and weekend seminars, may be offered as a means of supporting non-traditional students.

Summary and Ongoing Challenges

Research findings about the importance of children's earliest experiences have heightened the demand for individuals to work with infants and young children with special needs and their families. At the same time, universities are being called upon to reform their personnel preparation programs to reflect workplace realities by producing graduates who not only possess content knowledge about children and their special needs, but also are skilled in the processes associated with family services and cross-disciplinary collaboration. To address this challenge, Arizona State University West established community-university partnerships and cross-institutional linkages to develop an individualized, standards-based personnel preparation program grounded in the expectations of the community and tailored to the needs of working professionals. Employing a student-centered approach, the Concentration in Infants and Young Children facilitates student and faculty communication via on-line conferencing, chat rooms, and E-mail. Also, the program fosters collaboration through cross-disciplinary course experiences, and integrates theory and practice through field-based assignments and on-the-job practica. This paradigm for personnel preparation is based on the belief that individuals who experience an interdisciplinary, collaborative, client-centered environment as students will be better prepared to offer appropriate, process-oriented intervention to the children and families whom they will eventually serve.

As circumstances and demands continue to evolve, personnel preparation programs must be prepared to address ongoing challenges. As we move toward the provision of services in natural environments and inclusive settings, there will be increased demand for personnel who demonstrate competencies from both the early childhood education and the special education disciplines. Universities must collaborate on the best way to blend existing early childhood education with early intervention and special education programs, while maintaining the most effective aspects of each. The movement toward inclusive practices and natural environments will affect the roles that professionals assume within service delivery systems. There will be an increasing need for graduates who are skilled in providing consultation and technical assistance to adults, in addition to being skilled in designing and implementing direct services to children. The role that technology plays in early intervention also will be critically important. With the recent assistive technology mandate of IDEA and the validation of assistive technology competencies for special educators (Lahm & Nickels, 1999), future graduates will be expected to have an additional set of knowledge and skills that prepares them to judge the appropriateness of assistive technology as a tool or intervention.

Finally, as school populations become more heterogeneous in terms of culture and language, educators are faced with the dilemma of providing culturally competent services through a work force that does not currently represent the population served. Universities must be willing to address this challenge, not only in the area of program content, but also in the area of student recruitment. It is important, however, that universities view these challenges as more than hurdles to overcome. These challenges present exciting opportunities--opportunities to prepare personnel who are equipped to address the workplace realities of the 21st century and provide responsive, high-quality services to infants, young children, and their families.

References

Anastasiow, N.J. (1990). Implications for the neurobiological model for early intervention. In S. J. Meisels & J. P. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 196-216). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Arizona Department of Education. (1998). [Certified personnel]. Unpublished data.

Bailey, D. B., Jr. (1989). Issues and directions in preparing professionals to work with young handicapped children and their families. In J. J. Gallagher, P. L. Trohanis, & R. M. Clifford (Eds.), Policy implementation and P. L. 99-457: Planning for young children with special needs (pp. 97-132). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Bailey, D. B., Simeonsson, R. J., Yoder, D. E., & Huntington, G. S. (1990). Preparing professionals to serve infants and toddlers with handicaps and their families: An integrative analysis across eight disciplines. Exceptional Children, 57, 26-35.

Barrera, I., & Kramer, L. (1997). From monologues to skilled dialogues: Teaching the process of crafting culturally competent early childhood environments. In P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.), Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues, models and practical strategies (pp. 217-252). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Cripe, J. W., Hanline, M. F., & Daley, S. E. (1997). Preparing practitioners for planning intervention for natural environments. In P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.), Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues, models and practical strategies (pp. 337-362). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

DEC Task Force on Recommended Practices. (1993). DEC recommended practices: Indicators of quality in programs for infants and young children with special needs and their families. Reston, VA: Division for Early Childhood Council for Exceptional Children.

Fenichel, E. S., & Eggbeer, L. (1991). Preparing practitioners to work with infants, toddlers, and their families: Four essential elements for training. Infants and Young Children, 4(2), 56-62.

Fox, N. A., Calkins, S. D., & Bell, M. A. (1994). Neural plasticity and development in the first two years of life: Evidence from cognitive and socioemotional domains of research. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 677-696.

Garland, C. W., & Frank, A. (1997). Building effective early intervention teamwork. In P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.), Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues, models and practical strategies (pp. 363-392). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Garrett, J. N. (1997). [Collaborative interdisciplinary training for infant and preschool personnel: ASU West Instructional Development and Support Grant]. Unpublished data.

Gomby, D. S., Larner, M., Stevenson, C., Lewit, E., & Behrman, R. (1995). Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 6(3), 6-24.

Guskey, T. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.

Hebbeler, K. (1995). Shortages in professions working with young children with disabilities and their families. Chapel Hill, NC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System.

Kelley, M. F. (1996). Collaboration in early childhood education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 7(3), 275-282.

Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Kontos, S., & Diamond, K. (1997). Preparing practitioners to provide early intervention services in inclusive settings. In P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.), Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues, models and practical strategies (pp. 393-410). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Lahm, E. A., & Nickels, B. L. (1999). What do you know? Assistive technology competencies for special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(1), 56-63.

McBride, S. L., & Brotherson, M.J. (1997). Guiding practitioners toward valuing and implementing family-centered practices. In P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.), Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues, models and practical strategies (pp. 253-276). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

McCollum, J. A., & Bailey, D. B. (1991). Developing comprehensive personnel systems: Issues and alternatives. Journal of Early Intervention, 15(1), 57-65.

McCollum, J. A., Rowan, L. R., & Thorp, E. K. (1994). Philosophy as training in infancy personnel preparation. Journal of Early Intervention, 18(2), 216-226.

Mills, D. L., Coffey-Corina, S. A., & Neville, H. J. (1994). Variability in cerebral organization during primary language acquisition. In G. Dawson & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Human behavior and the developing brain (pp. 427-455). New York: Guilford.

Rogers, C. R., & Freiberg, H.J. (1994). Freedom to learn (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Sexton, D., Lobman, M., Constans, T., Snyder, P., & Ernest, J. (1997). Early interventionists' perspectives of multicultural practices with African-American families. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 313-328.

Sexton, D., Snyder, P., Wolfe, B., Lobman, M., Stricker, S., & Akers, P. (1996). Early intervention inservice training strategies: Perceptions and suggestions from the field. Exceptional Children, 62(6), 485-495.

Taylor, K., & Marienau, C. (1995). Bridging practice and theory for women's adult development. In K. Taylor & C. Marienau (Eds.), Learning environments for women's adult development: Bridges toward change (pp. 83-94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Thorp, E. K., & McCollum, J. A. (1994). Defining the infancy specialization in early childhood special education. In L. J. Johnson, R. J. Gallagher, M. J. LaMontagne, J. B. Jordan, J. J. Gallagher, P. L. Huntinger, & M. B. Karnes (Eds.), Meeting early intervention challenges: Issues from birth to three (2nd ed., pp. 217-233). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Winton, P., & McCollum, J. A. (1997). Ecological perspectives on personnel preparation: Rationale, framework and guidelines for change. In P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.), Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues, models and practical strategies (pp. 3-25). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Appendix A

Concentration in Infants and Young Children Background Analysis Worksheet

Name:

Educational Background

1978 -- BA -- University of Michigan -- Psychology

1983 -- Mesa Community College -- 8 credits -- Biology and Human Anatomy 

1994 -- 1999 -- Glendale Community College -- 6 credits -- Early Childhood Education

1999 -- ASU West -- SPE 540 -- Family Centered Practices

Experiential Background (consider volunteer and paid positions, internships, formal and informal experiences with young children and their families)

1988-1990 -- Teacher -- Shadow Rock Preschool

1990-1991 -- Behavior Coach -- Prescott Unified School District 

1992-present -- Preschool Coordinator -- Washington Elementary School District 

Current Professional Situation

What am I doing now? Preschool Coordinator/Teacher at Sunset Elementary School 

What do I enjoy about my current situation? Interactions with children and their families, in a pro-active role, to promote success in the educational environment.

What aspects of my current situation do I want to change? I want to improve my supervisory skills with the preschool staff. I want to improve my knowledge base for working with children and families with diverse abilities and with those from diverse backgrounds.

Professional Vision

What do I envision myself doing in 3 years? I envision myself in a position to positively impact programming for young children--perhaps at the school district level.

What do I envision myself doing in 5-8 years? I would like to enter a doctoral program. I have developed an interest in meeting the special needs of children and their families, including the special needs of gifted children.

Preliminary Planning

What do I need to do or what steps will I need to take to realize my professional vision? I need to complete a master's degree. In addition to completing required course work, I would like to be involved in research about young children with special needs and their families. I would like to see that the needs of all children are met.

Appendix B

Concentration in Infants and Young Children Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities Analysis

Directions: Rate each competency on a scale of 0-3 (0 = no knowledge or skill; 3 = expert knowledge or skill). Provide a justification (college course, professional experience, etc.) to support items rated 2 or 3.

Area: Developmentally Appropriate Programs and Practices

Competency                Rating    Justification            Review

* Comprehension of the       3      Preschool curriculum
role and importance of              course at GCC;
play in learning                    preschool experience;
                                    NAEYC certification
                                    process

* Knowledge of various        2     Knowledge of High
early childhood                     Scope and DAP; less
curricula                           familiar with
                                    Montessori and Reggio
                                    Emilia

* Ability to plan             3     Preschool curriculum
curriculum activities               course at GCC;
that are responsive                 preschool experience;
to children's interests,            NAEYC certification
preferences, motivation,            process
interactional styles,
developmental status,
learning history,
cultural variables, and
levels of participation

* Ability to plan             3     Multicultural
curriculum activities               education class at
that are respectful of              GCC; preschool
family-identified outcomes          cirriculum course at
and preferences                     GCC; preschool
                                    experience; NEYC
                                    certification process

* Ability to integrate        3     Preschool curriculum
skills from various                 course at GCC;
domains within routine              preschool experience;
curriculum activites                NEYC certification
                                    process

* Ability to construct        1-2   Extensive experience
learning environments               in classrooms; limited
appropriate to the many             experience with
settings (home,                     home and community
community, classroom)               settings
in which young children
function

* Ability to adapt            1     Some experience as a
materials and environments          behavior coach
in order to ensure
that all children have
access to learning
activities

* Ability to promote          1-2   Preschool curriculum
social interactions and             course at GCC;
social competence within            preschool experience;
the contexts of inclusive           NAEYC certification
settings                            process; limited
                                    experience with
                                    inclusion

Appendix C

Concentration in Infants and Young Children Individualized Student Learning Plan

Name:                                    Date: October 1999

Professional Goals and Learning Outcomes

1. to continue my professional development
2. to obtain a master's degree
3. to improve my ability to supervise and consult with adults
4. to increase my knowledge of children with special needs

Strategies for Achieving Goals and Outcomes
(enrollment option, courses to be taken, proposed practica)

Action                                      Time Line     Completed

Enrollment Option:
   M. Ed. Program                           Fall 1999     Fall 1999
Cross-Disciplinary Area:
   Administration and Supervision
Graduate Option:
   Applied Project Courses:
      COE 501: Research Methods             Spring 2000
      SPE 540: Family-Centered Practices    Fall 1999     Fall 1999
      SPE 541: Consultation Issues and      Fall 1999     Fall 1999
        Frameworks
      ECD/SPE 542: Systems, Policies and
        Program
      Practices for Infants and Young       Spring 2000
        Children
      ECD/SPE 543: Issues in Development    Spring 2000
      ECD/SPE 544: Assessment of Infants
        and Young Children                  Fall 2000
      ECD/SPE 546: Communication,
        Language and Early Literacy         Spring 2001
      ECD/SPE 545: Curricula, Methods,
        Technology and Adaptations for      Fall 2000
        Infants and Young Children
      ECD/SPE 547: Supporting Motor         Spring 2001
        Development
      EDA 521: Evaluation of Teaching       Summer 2000
        Performance
      EDA 526: Instructional Supervision    Summer 2000
      ECD/SPE 580: Practicum - Inclusive
        Setting                             Summer 2001

Review Dates and Modifications:

Next Review Date: Fall 2000

Authors' Note:

We thank Jeanette Allison and Kathleen Harris for their helpful feedback during the development of this article. We also thank Susan Ikeler for her contributions during initial implementation of the BASE Model.

Judith N. Garrett is Assistant Professor, Early Childhood and Special Education, and Michael F. Kelley is Associate Professor & Coordinator of Early Childhood Education, Arizona State University West, Phoenix.