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] Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 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. Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 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 Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 28 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1) 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 Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 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 Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 30 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1) 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 Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 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 Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 32 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1) 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 Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 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 Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 34 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1) 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 Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 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). Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 36 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1) 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 Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 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 Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 38 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1) 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 Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 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, Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 40 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1) •• 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. Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 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. Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 42 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(1) 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 Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010 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. Downloaded from http://tes.sagepub.com at Claremont Colleges Library on March 2, 2010
© Copyright 2024