1. No category

Teacher Education and Special
Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for
Exceptional
Children
http://tes.sagepub.com/
Innovation, Policy, and Capacity in Special Education Teacher Education: Competing
Demands in Challenging Times
Michael S. Rosenberg and Christine Walther-Thomas
Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children 2014 37: 77
DOI: 10.1177/0888406413516809
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://tes.sagepub.com/content/37/1/77
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/content/37/1/77.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jan 5, 2014
What is This?
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at SUNY NEW PALTZ on June 13, 2014
516809
research-article2013
TESXXX10.1177/0888406413516809Teacher Education and Special EducationRosenberg and Walther-Thomas
Article
Innovation, Policy, and Capacity
in Special Education Teacher
Education: Competing Demands in
Challenging Times
Teacher Education and Special Education
2014, Vol. 37(1) 77­–82
© 2013 Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0888406413516809
tese.sagepub.com
Michael S. Rosenberg1 and Christine Walther-Thomas2
In a special new millennial issue of the Journal of Teacher Education, Sindelar and
Rosenberg (2000) speculated that teacher
educators entering the 21st century will continue to navigate a complex professional landscape replete with numerous and often
contradictory demands. The authors noted
that these demands will continue relentlessly
from outside and inside of our university
homes and include, to name a few, laborintensive legislative mandates for curriculum
and assessment reform, budget-driven university retrenchment, and a growing market orientation to higher education access and
delivery. In terms of predictions, this one was
correct: Almost 15 years later, in a time of
severe budgetary restrictions, teacher preparation programs are still facing multiple and
relentless demands that require significant
amounts of fiscal and human resources that
must conform to highly variable state program approval/certification requirements and
meet standards of professional organizations
such as the Council for Exceptional Children
(CEC). Programs are also being assessed by
professional (and in the view of some, politically motivated) accreditation bodies such as
the Council for the Accreditation of Educator
Preparation (CAEP). Completers of programs
are not spared the demands and are required
by most states to demonstrate, through controversial and costly assessments like the edTPA,
their professional readiness to meet the academic needs of all students the first day they
become teachers of record. A major impetus
for this enhanced scrutiny is the requirement
that all teacher preparation providers show
evidence of efficacy of their efforts, making
sure that any formula or combination of
accountability metrics includes measures of
impact on P-12 student outcomes (Bishop,
Sindelar, Brownell, Rosenberg, & Connolly,
2005; CAEP, 2013; Gansle, Noell, & Burns,
2012).
With these thoughts in mind, it was with
great interest that we read the manuscripts in
this special issue of Teacher Education and
Special Education (TESE) titled “Special
Education Teacher Education in the 21st Century: Evolving Approaches.” In our current
roles as deans of large comprehensive Schools
of Education (and as former chairs of large
and productive Departments of Special
Education), we seek to “stay ahead of the
curve” and ensure environmental conditions
in our respective schools lead to the development of high-quality teachers, promote evidence-based
practices,
and
facilitate
collaborative and innovative thinking. We are
particularly interested in defining how as
instructional leaders we can promote, nurture,
and ultimately sustain the environmental conditions for high-quality teacher development
in the face of changing and politically charged
policy contexts, competing reform agendas,
reduced operational capacity, increased
requirements for accountability, and the myriad technological applications for learning
1
State University of New York at New Paltz, NY, USA
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA,
USA
2
Corresponding Author:
Michael S. Rosenberg, State University of New York at
New Paltz, Old Main Building 114800 Hawk Drive, New
Paltz, NY 12561-2442, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at SUNY NEW PALTZ on June 13, 2014
78
Teacher Education and Special Education 37(1)
that were unimaginable a few years ago.
Clearly, we are indebted to the editors and
authors of the articles in this special issue.
These articles provide us with provocative
and thoughtful views of how to best prepare
special educators in a period of dramatic and
unpredictable policy and practice. Most
importantly, each contribution helps clarify
what we know about the swirl of change surrounding special education teacher development, facilitating greater integration of theory,
policy, research, and practice.
For example, in a most creative fashion,
Dukes, Darling, and Doan (2014) set the stage
for this special issue using evolutionary biology as a metaphor for changes in education.
Considering special education as an organism
within an evolving educational environment,
elements of special education teacher preparation (e.g., course delivery, field experiences,
and performance assessment) are viewed as
being affected by a broad array of social,
political, educational, technological, and economic evolutionary selection pressures.
Changes induced by this complex environment are ongoing, dynamic, and, in many
cases, almost imperceptible, and it is often
difficult to discern the direction of influence
one mechanism has on another. The authors
highlight variant (e.g., alternative routes for
preparation, preparation goals) and invariant
(e.g., diversity, technology) selection pressures and use the selection pressure framework as a means for their fellow contributors
to review and ponder three key dimensions of
special education teacher preparation: course
delivery and professional development, innovative approaches to teacher development,
and performance-based assessment.
In terms of course delivery, Vernon-Dodson, Floyd, Dukes, and Darling (2014)
reviewed the literature related to special education course delivery and identified common
themes related to established preparation
needs, methods, logistics, efficacy, and other
critical factors (e.g., prerequisite candidate
knowledge, emerging course delivery
research). Given the proliferation of online
preparation programs, they reviewed a number of studies published over the past decade
evaluating the efficacy of instructional
approaches. A discouraging finding was the
limited work deemed suitable for review.
From more than a potential 1,300 articles,
only 17 met the selection criteria established
by the co-authors. While the review sample
size was small, no significant differences were
reported between the traditional face-to-face
programs and models offered online with
respect to student performance and teacher
satisfaction. Logistical concerns related to
online learning such as computer speeds,
bandwidth, system outages, uploading or
downloading errors, learning platforms, and
other technical issues were reported as ongoing challenges in a number of studies.
Through their review, the authors identified several implications for effective 21stcentury teacher education research and
practice. As online teacher preparation programs continue to grow, teacher educators
need a much clearer understanding of the
technology and its potential for effective preservice and in-service teacher development.
Given the paucity of empirical research comparing traditional and online teacher preparation models, more empirical research is
needed to determine the value of various preparation models, that is, what works, for whom,
and under what conditions.
Dieker, Rodriguez, Lignugaris/Kraft,
Hynes, and Hughes (2014) reported on the use
of simulation technology to facilitate effective
teacher development, specifically instructional skills, classroom management, and
reflection. While simulation technology has
been used widely in other fields such as aviation, medicine, and military science to develop
discrete and targeted practices, its application
in teacher development is limited. The coauthors assert this technology can help novice
teachers to hone their skills through practice,
feedback, guided reflection, and opportunities
make immediate instructional adjustments
and practice the task again in a controlled
environment. To that end, Dieker et al.
described their own simulated classroom
learning research and development efforts in
collaboration with other universities. A key
feature of this work is a structured process for
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at SUNY NEW PALTZ on June 13, 2014
79
Rosenberg and Walther-Thomas
reflection drawn from extensive military simulation research designed to provide personalized learning to facilitate effective skill
mastery, knowledge transfer, and acquisitionto-application learning. Anecdotal evidence
suggests the simulated practice paired with a
structured instructional review process helps
novice teachers become more adept at “in
action” reflection enabling them to modify
their instruction to meet dynamic student
needs. Still, while simulated classroom learning holds great promise for the future of
teacher education, the research base is limited. Unlike other fields in which this technology has proven successful, many questions
remain unanswered about its potential and
widespread use in teacher education given
significant start-up and maintenance costs,
technology requirements, and personnel
investments.
Finally, McCall, McHatton, and Shealey
(2014) reviewed three broad teacher candidate assessment areas: core knowledge and
instructional skills required for effective special education teaching (i.e., academics,
behavior, collaboration); dispositional factors
such as reflective practice, attitudes about disability, and cultural response; and summative
assessment models (e.g., work samples, portfolios, field assessments). Given emerging
state and federal accountability policies linking higher education teacher preparation programs on the standardized K-12 test scores of
program graduates, this review is timely for
TESE readers. While teacher quality is a significant factor in student performance, other
challenges to effective student learning (e.g.,
poverty, disability, language, school context,
leadership, class size, culture, and race)
received considerably less attention in public
debate and policy development.
More than ever before, colleges and universities preparing teachers for work in complex learning environments (e.g., special
education, low-income schools, urban and
rural communities) must be able to demonstrate the value of the preparation their graduates receive. Not surprisingly, McCall et al.
found few well-documented and researchbased teacher assessment models. Unfortu-
nately, today the overall “value” of a teacher’s
effectiveness is tied too closely to her students’ performance on standardized tests. Policy makers and pundits continue to ignore the
complex realities of public education. The coauthors presented a compelling case that
effective assessment models must be developed to document the formative development
of teacher candidate knowledge, skills, and
dispositions, and valid and reliable summative performance measures. If scholars of
teacher education take an active role in the
development of comprehensive teacher
assessment models, all parties will benefit.
Well-conceived and collaborative measures
may help the public better understand the
socio-political landscape of public schools,
the challenges good teachers face, and recognize their responsibilities as advocates for
effective teaching and student learning.
Taken together, the articles in this special
issue indicate that special educator preparation is evolving in an energetic and innovative
fashion. A general theme across these efforts
is that innovation and development are functional responses to variant and invariant selection pressures influencing our field. Clearly,
our colleagues are fully engaged in exciting,
innovative, and collaborative developments in
teacher professional development, most notably in the areas of course delivery, technology,
and assessment. Unfortunately, our own
enthusiasm regarding these efforts novel
approaches is tempered by the selection pressures identified by Dukes et al. (2014), as well
as other environmental pressures. As noted
below, these pressures prompt ongoing reflection and regularly test our core beliefs. We are
often frustrated that programmatic decisions
go beyond criteria such as innovative, creative, and effective, and are bound more by a
range of budgetary, capacity, and policy contexts internal and external to our college and/
or university.
First, there are budget and institutional
capacity selection pressures associated with
integrating innovation and new initiatives into
teacher preparation programs. Vernon-Dodson et al. (2014), for example, observed that
logistical concerns in technology integration
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at SUNY NEW PALTZ on June 13, 2014
80
Teacher Education and Special Education 37(1)
such as computer speeds, bandwidth, system
outages, uploading or downloading errors,
and learning platforms are, for many campuses, stumbling blocks for effective and efficient online learning. Many programs simply
lack the necessary infrastructure to use technology effectively. Keeping up with innovative applications of e-learning that go beyond
the mere downloading of PowerPoint displays
is difficult because capital expenditure
requests for synchronous technology upgrades
compete with other, sometimes more immediate demands such as facilities maintenance,
faculty positions, and faculty salaries. Even
when there are adequate budgets, the selection
pressures associated with faculty buy-in to
novel technological methods loom large.
Many teacher educators fail to understand
technology’s potential in comprehensive
teacher development; in many schools of education smart boards and high technology
classrooms remain underused and online
applications of assessing student performance
are approached with anxiety and suspicion.
A related challenge is converting existing
face-to-face courses into effective instructionally sound online courses or hybrid learning
experiences. As deans seeking to implement a
futures orientation to teacher preparation, we
recognize that institutional support for guiding the conversion and roll-out of course content is needed, as is budgetary support to fund
instructional technology support and time for
course preparation. Nonetheless, we are constrained by the variable technological competence of our colleagues and the range and
intensity of needs across our programs and
campuses. Consider the specific selection
pressures: Does one hire an instructional
designer or a faculty specialist in the burgeoning area of autism spectrum disabilities? How
does one promote faculty buy-in for conversion to electronic coursework and maintain
reasonable and equitable faculty load? Is there
the capacity to provide the necessary support
for the wide range of technological tool skills
necessary for navigating simulated learning
environments?1
Second, there are selection pressures that
emerge from the two often competing cultures
of research and politics. Generally, the
research minded culture views educational
issues as overly complex, multi-causal, and in
need of considerable study; the political culture expects streamlined explanations to complex issues that can be easily communicated
and are amenable to specific actions (Henig,
2008). These competing cultures are on full
display in the often tense discussions of the
common core, the delivery of clinically rich
preparation programs, and the use of performance-based assessments of the policy area
and on our campuses.
For example, in their review of special
education teacher candidate assessment,
McCall et al. (2014) highlight the question the
viability of a common core for developing
teachers and note the lack of research on
teacher performance assessments, especially
for special education. Nonetheless, many of
our students seeking certification and licensure will need to pass the edTPA, a multiple
measure assessment system aligned to state
and national standards that ensures that all
new teachers are able to teach and improve
student achievement (edTPA, 2013). Students
are required to submit video clips of instruction, lesson plans, student work samples, analysis of student learning, and reflective
commentaries. With 33 states participating in
the system, and organizations such as American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education (AACTE) strongly supporting it as
a means of increasing “learning opportunities
for our nation’s students by setting high and
manageable standards for the teachers who
will serve them" (Robinson, 2013, p. 1), the
edTPA also has no shortage of critics among
teacher education faculty and advocates. In
addition to losing influence in recommending
students for certification and licensure—the
edTPA has been likened to a “bar exam for
teaching”—some faculty are concerned that
corporate scorers do not know the teacher
candidates nor are aware of the context of the
teaching sample. As noted by Gorlewski
(2013), this anonymity dismisses the importance of relationships in teaching, “preferring
the pretense of objectivity over trust, authenticity, and cultural responsiveness” (p. 1).
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at SUNY NEW PALTZ on June 13, 2014
81
Rosenberg and Walther-Thomas
The conflicting research and political
selection pressures are also central to discussions on the hot button issues of teacher candidate quantity and quality. Currently, in
concert with new CAEP accreditation standards, a number of state and university systems are increasing standards for entry into
teacher preparation programs. In Standard 3,
CAEP requires that providers ensure that the
average grade point average of its accepted
cohort of candidates meets or exceeds 3.0, and
that the group average performance on nationally normed assessments such as ACT, SAT,
or GRE be in the top 50% from 2016-2017
and grow into the top 33% of the distribution
by 2020. Going beyond a mere aggregate
average, the State University of New York
system has mandated that every candidate in
its teacher preparation programs must have at
least a 3.0 GPA. These candidate selection
pressures will arguably improve teacher candidate quality but can have great impact on
the size of already shrinking preparation program enrollments and have the possible unintended consequence of reducing opportunities
for disenfranchised and nontraditional students who wish to become teachers.
A discussion of the merits of the edTPA
and increasing admission requirements for
teacher preparation programs is clearly
beyond the scope of this commentary. We
raise these issues as exemplars of the conflicts
deans face when negotiating the selection
pressures that involve scholarly and political
views of academic policies and procedures.
Specifically, the new assessment demands of
the edTPA are not without cost: Funding must
be allocated to ensure that teacher preparation
candidates are prepared to meet the edTPA
requirements and faculty personnel must be
made aware as to how these new certification
requirements are to be integrated into courses
and learning activities. In addition, opportunities for knowledgeable faculty must be provided for productive critiques of the new
assessment policies and structures. Similarly,
we know little regarding the impact of
increased GPA and standardized test scores on
college enrollments, the percentage of students from underrepresented groups in our
programs, and most important, the effects of
such changes on the performance of our graduates. Still, we are required to integrate such
policies due to variant selection pressures of
legislative statute.
The articles in this special issue explore
innovative approaches but also highlight
contradictory internal and external selection
pressures institutions must address in making well-conceived practices happen. Writing about the effects of policy incoherence
on school improvement practices, Honig and
Hatch (2004) urged that education decision
makers reconceptualize their views of competing policy demands, noting there will
never be objective alignment among demands
or selection pressures. Rather, they advocate
that the goal of policy coherence be viewed
as a dynamic process in which multiple
stakeholders work together to negotiate a
best fit between internal demands, external
demands, and the mission of their respective
institutions. Unfortunately, far too many of
our colleagues have only a superficial knowledge of policy and selection pressures and,
as observed by Bartolome (2008), view policy decisions as “almost god-given, and permanent, and not subject to examination and
challenge” (p. 376). We agree that selection
pressures must be viewed within this
dynamic prism and that innovation in teacher
preparation—as on full display in this special issue—is necessary but not sufficient for
changes in practice. Those developing innovative practices in special education teacher
preparation must complement their efforts
with an awareness of selection pressures and
a commitment to the ongoing process of policy coherence.
Note
1. In Dieker et al.’s (2014) creative simulated
environments technology, several of these
difficult selection pressures are minimized.
As part of their development of TeachLive,™
iterative improvements to make their system
have resulted in greater user friendliness and
affordability. This increases the probability of
innovation scalability in our budget-sensitive
schools and colleges.
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at SUNY NEW PALTZ on June 13, 2014
82
Teacher Education and Special Education 37(1)
References
Bartolome, L. (2008). Understanding policy for
equity in teaching and learning: A critical-historical lens. Language Arts, 85, 376-381.
Bishop, A. G., Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T.,
Rosenberg, M. S., & Connelly, V. J. (2005).
Assessing innovation in teacher preparation:
What we’ve learned from special education
research. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32,
35-48.
Council for the Accreditation of Educator
Preparation. (2013). Draft recommendations
for the CAEP Board. Washington, DC: Author.
edTPA. (2013). About edTPA. Retrieved from
http://edtpa.aacte.org/about-edtpa
Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., & Burns, J. M. (2012).
Do student achievement outcomes differ
across preparation programs? An analysis of
teacher education in Louisiana. Journal of
Teacher Education, 65, 304-317. Retrieved
from http:www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Gorlewski, J. (2013). What is the edTPA and why
do critics dislike it. Retrieved from http://
dianeravitch.net/2013/06/03/what-is-edtpaand-why-do-critics-dislike-it/
Henig, J. R. (2008). Spin cycle: How research is
used in policy debates: The case for charter schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting
coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational
Researcher, 33(8), 16-30.
Robinson, S. (2013). The who, how, and why
of edTPA: Clarification for critics and colleagues. Retrieved from http://aacte.org/
news-room/the-presidents-perspective/thewho-how-and-why-of-edtpa-clarification-forcritics-and-colleagues.html
Sindelar, P. T., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2000).
Serving too many masters: The proliferation of
ill conceived policies and practices in teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 51,
188-193.
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at SUNY NEW PALTZ on June 13, 2014