Successful preparation of teachers of students with disabilities.

Abstract

Universities can provide highly qualified, effective teachers for students with disabilities in California and throughout the United States by (1) redesigning credential programs to include collaboration of general and special educators, (2) streamlining admission procedures into teacher education programs, (3) coordinating existing resources, and (4) increasing the ability of local education agencies to participate in career ladder programs.

Background

The Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997 is evidence of the increasing emphasis Federal and State policy makers are placing on higher learning standards and school accountability. IDEA requires evidence of more precise goal setting, rational program choices to attain those goals, and documentation of results. These requirements include a focus on children with disabilities in the general education curriculum.

Two different agencies, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services and State Departments of Education, have the responsibility of monitoring activities relative to compliance with Federal and State regulations and the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to children with disabilities. The California State Department of Education has designed a new monitoring system which focuses on improved student results and the effectiveness of the quality assurance process through an effective program plan.

California policy makers have increased the priority of student learning accountability for all children in the state, including children with disabilities. In January 1999, the California State Legislature began a special session to adopt school reform and accountability regulations. These educational reforms include the establishment of content and performance standards of learning, a statewide assessment program, regulations regarding grade level promotion and retention, and identification and support for underperforming schools. These much-needed reforms are for students in general education programs as well as for children with disabilities.

The legislation underscores the need for collaborative training for general and special educators. Historically, the credential training programs for general educators have emphasized general education curriculum and methodologies. The credential training programs for educational specialists (special education teachers) have emphasized instructional strategies and remediation techniques. It is not apparent that both groups, general and special education teachers, require the knowledge and skills of each if all students are to be successful in achieving the performance and curriculum standards adopted by the state of California.

Critical Shortage of Teachers

Throughout the United States, the accountability movement requires the most competent teachers for all children. Currently, there exists a shortage of all teachers (i.e., multiple subject, single subject, special education) with the most critical shortage in special education. The special education teacher shortage in California is at least consistent with, if not more serious than the figures reported at the national level. Each year there are significant increases in the number of emergency credentials and various waivers in order to staff special education classrooms. For example, the number of emergency permits for teachers of special education in California rose from 3,522 in the 1995-1996 schoolyear to 6, 158 in the 1999-2000 schoolyear.

The number of teachers in special education without credentials in California has steadily risen to 9,408 in 1998-99. This total represents an increase of over 100% since 1993 (Department of Education, 1999; California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC), 1999). In addition, emergency permits for special education teachers experienced an increase of 8.9% from 1998-1999 to 1999-2000 (CCTC, 2001). Overall, there has been a dramatic increase in emergency permits for special education teachers in the state of California over a five-year span.

Several factors contribute to this severe shortage of special education teachers. Data indicate that while there is a statewide increase in the number of enrollees in special education credential programs, there is an annual decline in the number of candidates recommended for the special education specialist credentials (CCTC, 2001). Districts are finding that teachers without credentials are leaving the field before completing their credentials. During 1995-96, only 1,871 special education credentials were issued through university programs which clearly did not fill the 9,408 positions not staffed by qualified teachers (CCTC, 1997). Furthermore, many individuals who complete the credential each year are not new teachers being added to the pool. They are individuals who have been employed on emergency permits while completing a credential.

In addition, California's initiative to reduce the class size for kindergarten through third grade has had a "domino" effect on teacher recruitment for special education. Many teachers who may have pursued the additional course work for the special education credential are taking positions in these general education settings. Other special education teachers currently working on specialist credentials have left their positions to teach a K-3 classroom.

New Standards for Educational Specialist Credentials

In response to the critical shortage, CCTC established new standards for the Mild/Moderate and Moderate/Severe Educational Specialist Credentials in 1998. These new credentials are significantly different from the previous credentials, Learning Handicapped and Severely Handicapped. They do not require a separate general education credential, but instead require the candidates for special education credentials to demonstrate competency in teaching standards for all students. Cal Poly Pomona was one of the first Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) receiving initial approval for these new credentials. At that time, Cal Poly Pomona initiated a pilot of an integrated credential program which required core coursework for credentials in elementary education, secondary education, special education (Mild/Moderate and Moderate/Severe) encompassing key curricula areas including English language development, language acquisition, cultural sensitivity, fieldwork within a variety of diverse settings, and technology skills across the curriculum.

There is increased frustration with the enormity of the task of providing highly qualified, effective teachers in an extended community with an increasingly diverse student population. Teachers also need assistance with accountability reform movement expectations. Collaborative training must be provided for general and special educators during their pre-service and in-service training.

Today's movement to inclusionary classrooms, as well as the diversity in California, has increased the pressure on general education teachers to be accountable for providing successful experiences for children who demonstrate a wide range of learning abilities. However, several studies have reported that teachers state their lack of specific knowledge, skills, and continuing support to ensure the effectiveness of inclusion. Many teachers are not receiving training and are not confident in their knowledge and skills for planning adaptations for students with disabilities (Schumm & Vaughn, 1992a; Jensen, Mortorff, & Meyers, 1992; Billingsley & Tomchin, 1992).

Significantly, over 90% of students with disabilities placed in general education classrooms have high incidence disabilities (i.e., speech or language, learning disabilities, serious emotional disturbance, mild cognitive disabilities) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993; Kauffman, 2002). McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, and Lee (1993) and Anderson-Inman (1986) found that students with learning disabilities interacted with teachers and students at a much lower rate than students without disabilities in the same classroom. Students with learning disabilities also engaged in classroom activities less often~en than other students in general education. Therefore, general education teachers must be trained to deal with these vital engagement issues affecting students with disabilities in their classrooms (Dettmer, Dyck, & Thurston, 1999).

Collaboration

The issue of productive collaboration between special and general educators is a major focus in today's movement to more inclusive classrooms. Research (Friend, 1985; Johnson & Johnson, 1986; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1994, 1997, 2000) demonstrates a direct link between positive collegial relationships, school climate, and the quality of academic and social growth of students. At the same time, obvious differences in philosophical and instructional beliefs, goals, and instructional methods between general and special educators have been observed and documented by school personnel and researchers and must be addressed. Several publications (Dettmer, Dyck, & Thurston, 1999; Friend, 1985; Idol-Maestas, Paolucci, Whitcomb, & Nevin, 1986) offer suggestions for collaborative supports for teachers and training in a wide range of instructional strategies that may have a positive impact on the learning and success of students with high incidence disabilities in inclusive settings.

General and special educators need to collaborate and share responsibility for educating students with disabilities in the general education setting. To do this adequately, they require specific and simultaneous training in team teaching, problem- solving, decision-making, cooperative learning, and collaborative teaming. They need clinical experiences in which they work together to incorporate such practices as increased student-teacher interaction, high academic engaged time, relevant curriculum, and maximized opportunities for student success (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1997). Most essential is extensive, directed, on-going and simultaneous collaborative training of pre- and in-service general and special educators. Teachers-in-training must be provided with educational experiences that are extremely specific, demonstration lessons in their classroom settings, and release time for ongoing meetings with other teachers to discuss adaptations and alternative practices for their students (Billingsley & Tomchin, 1992; Friend, 1985; Sprinthall & Theis-Sprinthall, 1983).

Critical issues that must be addressed by IHEs include methods to: a) improve the performance of students with disabilities in general education curriculum through collaborative training of general and special educators during the pre-service and in-service periods; b) meet the critical crisis in personnel shortage in partner Local Education Agencies (LEA) by increasing their capacity to access state resources for career ladder alternative credential programs; and c) recruit quality personnel to better serve the needs of this population. Teacher education institutions must focus on improvement in the recruitment, retention, preparation, induction and retention of personnel who have the responsibility for ensuring children with disabilities achieve high standards and become independent, productive citizens. Universities that train teachers should create credential programs which address the following objectives:

1. Develop an innovative standards-based model for collaborative training of general and special education personnel including paraprofessionals during the credential training programs.

2. Provide site-based in-service training on general and special education collaboration.

3. Assist partner LEAs in accessing resources for career ladder alternative certification programs for teachers.

4. Disseminate information on materials, processes or techniques developed to other colleges, universities, and LEAs.

As a result of the critical shortage of teachers in the State of California, and in particular, the shortage of Special Education Specialists, the CCTC has established many alternative programs to obtain credentials. Some of these alternative programs are available to LEAs as well as universities. Although the LEAs in Cal Poly Pomona's service area have a critical shortage of credentialed teachers in both general and special education, many of these LEAs do not have the knowledge, skills or time to develop proposals to support career ladder credential candidates. Templates should be developed by IHEs for completing applications for California state funding, which will allow partner LEAs greater access to career ladder alternative credential programs. These LEA alternative programs, many of them training programs for paraprofessionals, must articulate with teacher training institutions' entrance requirements to both the University and Education Departments. The training program will then be a true collaboration between general and special programs.

The Win-Win Approach--One Local Solution

In September 1999, Cal Poly Pomona was awarded a federal grant from the United States Department of Education, The Win-Win Approach which continues until 2004. The purpose of this grant is:

* To recruit and financially support up to 40 participants annually.

* To provide preparation in English language development and language acquisition.

* To provide competencies in integrating technology skills into classroom curricula.

* To provide participants with effective strategies to accommodate diverse students with disabilities in inclusive settings.

* To provide maximum support and assistance for beginning special educators.

By the year 2004, 100 Mild/Moderate and Moderate/Severe Education Specialists who are representatives of ethnic minorities or who are individuals with disabilities will have been supported by The Win-Win Approach grant. Although this is a major improvement, it represents a small solution to the ever-increasing need for special education teachers in the Cal Poly Pomona area and the state of California.

Conclusion

There is a national shortage of teachers, especially teachers of students with disabilities. Concurrently, there is a national commitment to accountability reform. By redesigning credential programs to include collaboration of general and special educators, streamlining admission procedures, coordinating existing resources, and increasing the ability of LEAs to participate in career ladder programs, universities can meet the needs of providing highly qualified effective teachers for students with disabilities.

Specifically, the collaborative training programs should focus on a wide range of instructional strategies/interventions of "best practices" (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). These instructional stategies/interventions should include: cooperative learning, curriculum based assessment, peer tutoring, direct instruction, teaching of metacognitive strategies, behavior modification and cognitive behavior management, and self management and goal setting. Overall, IHEs must not only design collaborative training programs for pre-service and in-service general and special educators, but also maximize existing resources to meet the critical shortage of teachers which will directly improve the quality of instruction for children with disabilities.

References

Anderson-Inman, L. (1986). Bridging the gap: Student-centered strategies for promoting the transfer of learning. Exceptional Children, 52, 562-572.

Billingsley, B.S., & Tomehin, E.M. (1992). Four beginning LD teachers: What their experiences suggest for trainers and employers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 104-112.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) (1997). Data on emergency permits and waivers in special education in the state of California. Sacramento: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) (1997). Data on special education credentials granted by the commission. Sacramento: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) (1999). Data on emergency permits and waivers in special education in the state of California. Sacramento: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) (1999). Data on special education credentials granted by the commission. Sacramento: California Comnussion on Teacher Credentialing.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) (2001). Data on emergency permits and waivers in special education in the state of California. Sacramento: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

California Department of Education. (1997). April 1997 special education state-wide enrollment report. Sacramento: California Department of Education.

California Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education. (1994). Districts ranked by enrollment of LEP students, Spring, 1994--All languages combined state summary. Sacramento: California State Department of Education.

California Department of Education (1996). Plan 2000: Strategic implementation plan for the California comprehensive system of personnel development. Sacramento: Specialized Programs Branch, Special Education Division.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1988). Beyond the commission reports: The coming crisis in teaching. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

Deshler, D., & Schumaker, J. (1986). Learning strategies: An instructional alternative for low-achieving adolescents. Exceptional Children, 52, 583-590.

Dettmer, P., Thurston, L.P., & Dyck, N. (2001). Consultation, collaboration, and teamwork for students with special needs (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Friend, M.P. (1985). Training special educators to be consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 8, 115-120.

Friend, M.P., & Bursuck, W.D. (2001). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Darch, C. (1986). Direct instruction: A research-based approach to curriculum design and teaching. Exceptional Children, 53, 17-31.

Harvey, 03. (1966). System structure, flexibility, and creativity. In Experience, structure, and adaptability. New York: Springer.

Idol, L., Nevin, A., & Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. (2000). Collaborative consultation (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (1990). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (1997 Amendments). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Jensen, M.C., Mortorff, S.A., & Meyers, S.P. (1992). On-the-job training: Is it the answer to a special education personnel shortage? Teacher Education Quarterly, 19, 57-78.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1986). Mainstreaming and cooperative learning strategies. Exceptional Children, 52, 553-561.

Kauffman, J.M. (1995). Why we must celebrate a diversity of restrictive environments. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 225-232.

Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1994). Effective instruction for special education (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities: 1976 to 1996. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 197-214.

Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (2000). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1993). Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60(3), 249-261.

Palincsar, A.S. (1986). Metacognitive strategy instruction. Exceptional Children, 53, 118-124.

Schumm, J.S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12(4), 18-27.

Schumm, J.S., & Vaughn, S. (1992a). Planning for mainstreamed special education students: Perceptions of general classroom teachers. Exceptionality, 3, 81-98.

Schumm, J.S., & Vaughn, S. (1992b). Reflections on planning for mainstreamed special education students. Exceptionality, 3, 121-126.

Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1994). Refocusing microscope activities for special students. Science Scope, 17, 74-78.

Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1995). What makes special education special? Evaluating inclusion programs with the PASS variables. Journal of Special Education, 29, 224-233.

Shavelson, R.J., & Borko, H. (1979). Research on teachers' decisions in planning instruction. Educational Horizons, 57, 183-189.

Sprinthall, N., & Theis-Sprinthall, L. (1983). The teacher as an adult learner: A cognitive-developmental view. In G. Griffin (Ed.). Staff development: Eighty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part II, Chicago: University of Chicago.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1993). Current population reports (Series P-60, No. 181). Education Statistics on Disk. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.

Vaughn, S., Bos, C.S., & Schumm, J.S. (2003). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk students in the general education classroom (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Melinda R. Pierson, California State University, Fullerton Jeanne Davis, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Pierson, Ph.D., is Associate Professor. Her research interests focus on affective characteristics, effective strategies for students with disabilities, and issues in teacher training. Davis, Ed.D., is Grant Director. She coordinates the state and federal grants at Cal Poly Pomona where she teaches courses in collaboration and management of special education programs.