Using a Classification System to Probe the Meaning of Dual Licensure in General and Special Education

Collaboration and innovation in teacher education are essential ingredients for preparing teachers for increasingly diverse and challenging school populations. In the United States, one in five children lives in poverty, and the numbers of children who speak English as a second language are increasing rapidly (National Center for Education Statistics, 1997). If institutions of higher education are to prepare teachers for all students, current program structures and faculty roles must change substantially. Current practice, however, shows less than dramatic change. Some advocates of teacher education reform have cited funding patterns in schools of education, adherence to horizontal staffing of faculty assigned to specialized course loads, lack of public school teacher involvement, and an absence of a moral and ethical imperative throughout the program as barriers that continue to prevent reform and growth in teacher education (Fullan, Galluzzo, Morris, & Watson, 1998; Tom, 1997). State policies allowing alternative certification, limiting the number of credit hours in teacher education programs, and prescribing discrete teaching behaviors in the evaluation of teaching also continue to impede program change (Darling-Hammond, 1996). Some faculty may perceive such state policies, along with other regulatory influences such as the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), as constraining program development in teacher education rather than as guides for quality. The Holmes Partnership accomplished certain outcomes in teacher preparation, such as the proliferation of the professional development schools (PDS) concept, but it did not take strong positions on state and national policy. The lack of unified action in areas of state policy by leading institutions of higher education may have contributed to the stalling of reform (Fullan et al., 1998). The literature of practice in teacher education urges reform that includes collaboration across disciplines essential to educating teachers for increasingly diverse student populations (Blanton, Griffin, Winn, & Pugach, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 1996). Those disciplines may include special education, social work, general education, family and child development, counseling sociology, and educational leadership. Researchers have identified barriers to cross-disciplinary or interdisciplinary collaboration in teacher education that are largely administrative or social in nature. Barriers may include lack of incentives in faculty reward structures, inordinate amounts of time in already burdened faculty schedules, absence of understanding of interdisciplinary program development by administrators, lack of institutional resources, unwillingness by administrators to engage in creative faculty assignments, differences in philosophy among faculty, special interests and protectionist issues held by faculty, rigid thinking, and lack of respect across departments (Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997; Miller, in press; Miller & Stayon, 1998; Tom, 1997). The culture of higher education has traditionally maintained rigid conceptions about content and practices for preparing teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Tom, 1997). A decade of rhetoric about reform and the proliferation of the PDS concept would suggest that reform in collaborative teacher education is underway (Holmes Group, 1995). Interpretation of the status of institutional reform, however, may depend on whether one reads institutional mission statements and other documents, or whether one talks with faculty. In this article, we discuss findings of a qualitative study undertaken to explore the culture of higher education as it fits with proposed reform in teacher education and further describe existing barriers and supports. Although reports from administrators and official institutional documents continue to describe trends toward reform in definitions of scholarship and reward systems for faculty (Glassick et al. …

Equipping teachers for the full range of diversity of students in today's schools has long been a shared concern among teacher educators. Bilingual education, special education, culturally responsive teaching, social justice education, and urban education are among the several responses to this fundamental educational goal. These responses, however, although critical for moving the project of educational equity forward, have tended to produce conversations within diversity communities in teacher education rather than across them. The aim of this special issue is to open up what we believe to be a long overdue conversation among scholars from different diversity communities within teacher education to begin to think about what is needed if we are to advance teacher education that is responsive to the full range of diversity of students and that takes account of the multiple markers of identity that characterize individuals and groups of students--disability among them. This special issue grew out of a major session that took place at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) titled Diversity Frameworks in Teacher Education: Where Does Special Education Belong? The purpose of that session was to initiate a dialogue among teacher education leaders in multicultural education, culturally responsive teaching, social justice education, and special education to begin to unravel the enduring and thorny problem of why, given the longstanding rhetoric of preparing teachers for diversity, there has been comparatively little discussion about the role of special education within the larger discourse of diversity of race, class, culture, and language. The roots of that session can be traced back to discussions that began in 2002, during a 5-year joint, federally funded project housed within the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) in the Council of Chief State School Officers, with AACTE as one of the lead partners. In response to the call for special education teachers to become highly qualified under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), teams participating in this project, representing 45 states and made up of higher education faculty in general and special education and their respective counterparts at the state level, started to grapple with the question of what it meant to prepare novice teachers for in this new policy context. Team members began to raise important issues about preparing general education teachers for students with disabilities as an integral part of teacher education reform. With this special issue of Journal of Teacher Education (JTE), we broaden this question for the teacher education community: How can we work together to advance a more complete vision of diversity, one that does not merely attach disability to a long list of social markers of identity, but rather works from the assumption-and indeed the fact--that the children and youth for whom we prepare teachers do not have just one diversity identity, but rather multiple diversity identities that interact with and nest within one another in different and often complex ways. We appreciate the willingness of the scholars whose work appears in this issue--Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Curt Dudley-Marling, Jacqueline Jordan Irvine, Robert Rueda and Jamy Stillman, and Ana Maria Villegas--to join us in a rich conversation that pushes at the outer margins of the many diversity communities in which their and our work is typically situated. …

this class, get more attention and more help. I get more time with both They have different stories to tell, so it seems more interesting with two teachers in the class. I get help whenever need it. I understand the subject more. These comments from seventh grade students in co-taught language arts and social studies classes suggest some of the potential benefits of co-teaching. These benefits did not occur by accident; the teachers of these classes spent considerable time co-planning, implementing evidencebased practices, and reflecting on their instruction. This article provides an overview of co-teaching, highlights effective practices used by a middle school co-teaching team, and presents reflections from students in their classroom. What is co-teaching? One way to meet the unique challenges in diverse classrooms is co-teaching. Friend and Cook (2010) described co-teaching as an approach that provides specialized services to individual students in a general education classroom. Specifically, co-teaching involves two or more educators working collaboratively to deliver instruction to a heterogeneous group of students in a shared instructional space. In this environment, teachers blend their expertise, share materials, and develop common instructional goals (Friend & Cook, 2010). Generally, co-teaching team consists of a general educator and another licensed professional such as a special educator, speech/language pathologist, reading specialist, language specialist, or other general educator. Villa, Thousand, and Nevin (2008) noted that co-teaching assumes teachers agree on a goal, share a common belief system, demonstrate parity, share leadership roles while completing tasks, and practice effective communication skills. These principles provide the foundation for creating a fulfilling, professional co-teaching relationship. Co-teaching has gained popularity for a number of reasons. First, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) encourages schools to hold high expectations for all students and ensure students have access to the curriculum in general education classrooms to the maximum extent possible. Most professional educators acknowledge that, given appropriate supports and services, most students should be held to the same academic standards (McLeskey & Waldron, 2007). Coteaching is one viable, effective strategy to serve the needs of all students in general education settings, as required by IDEA (Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2008). Similarly, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) includes provisions that all students receive instruction from highly qualified teachers. Because some middle and high school special educators are not highly qualified in all academic subjects as defined by NCLB (Rice, Drame, Owens, & Frattura, 2007), this mandate has caused school administrators to reconceptualize how to best use the skills and expertise of all instructional and support faculty (Carpenter & Dyal, 2007). Co-teaching can help schools comply with the spirit of these NCLB provisions by arranging for teachers with content expertise to jointly plan and deliver instruction with special educators to ensure the success of all students. Such efforts may increase academic outcomes for all students while ensuring that students with disabilities receive necessary adaptations (Murawski & Dieker, 2004). Finally, teacher roles have become more collaborative than in the past. No longer do teachers work in isolation as they did just a few decades ago. For example, general educators now assume a more active role in developing individualized education plans (IEPs) by helping determine the appropriate accommodations and modifications students need to access the general education curriculum (Turnbull, Huerta, & Stowe, 2006). Consequently, general and special educators now collaboratively discuss students' needs, solve problems, demonstrate instructional techniques, lead or participate in professional development initiatives, share resources, and network with other professionals and outside agencies (Dettmer, Thurston, Knackendoffel, & Dyck, 2009). …

Federal legislation and the philosophies driving it are having a significant influence on how we educate American children, culminating in the recent No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Many educators have raised concerns about different aspects of the federal mandates. Among these, in my opinion, is the idea that one-size-fits-all criterion-referenced standardized testing can provide complete, valid, and reliable information. Another problem is the impossible goal that ALL children will read by third grade. This simply will not happen. Perhaps most significant of all is the fact that we are dealing with one more underfunded federal mandate that is even more far-reaching than the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which has never received the federal support called for since The Education of All Handicapped Children Act was passed in 1975. The result has forced state and local educational systems to shoulder the financial burden of federal legislation without a commensurate federal financial commitment. The list could go on, but we should acknowledge that federal legislation and the leadership of the Department of Education have also lead to improvements, both directly and indirectly. School systems and other organizations have been able to use legislation to strengthen existing programs and establish new initiatives. Although the final outcomes are not clear (if final outcomes ever occur!), American education clearly is taking on a more academic focus, with an emphasis on accountability and rigor. The federal government is trying to move the Head Start program to more of a concentration on reading and math. Charter schools are common in many states and controversial voucher programs may be established. More high school students are taking college-level Advanced Placement courses and there is an increase in the number of high school programs awarding the academically challenging International Baccalaureate degree. In special education it is undeniable that federal involvement has led to improved educational services and outcomes over the past 30 years in terms of the numbers of children being served and their preparation to function effectively in society. By the time this editorial sees print, IDEA 1997 should be superceded by IDEA 2003, with some modifications dealing with Individualized Education Plans and reducing over-identification, but the major elements should be the same. There is some talk in general education about the need for "seamless" educational programs. Primarily, this has addressed the range from kindergarten through 12th grade and discontinuities from elementary to middle (or junior high) to high school. Too often, this tripartite arrangement has resulted in three very different subsystems within one school district, with a lack of shared goals, and cooperation. The goal is to increase collaboration and erase these differences so that the transitions that children face will be less stressful and more productive. More recently there has been discussion about extending the seamless concept to include college (K-16), vocational training, and work. Where does this leave deaf and hard of hearing children? Do they have access to advanced placement or special academic program options? What provisions are made for them for the transition from high school? Our goal should be to provide seamless educational and other services not for K-12, but from birth to work. In terms of legislation, NCLB, IDEA, and the Education of the Deaf Act (EDA) each provides some mechanism to facilitate reaching our goal. There are provisions for early identification and services for deaf children and their families. NCLB authorizes the Early Reading and Reading First programs for preschool through the third grade. IDEA mandates student-centered transition [End Page 277] planning. EDA provides support for postsecondary training and education. The pieces are all there, but they are not in place as part of one system. Our infant screening and early identification programs vary in quality from state to state and often within states. Usually there is little or no coordination between the identification programs and the educational systems serving our children and their families. Information is often contradictory. We have the same gaps...

Editorial Federal Legislation and Teacher Behavior We are all aware of the growing impact of federal legislation on education in general and the education of deaf children and adults in particular. In fact, in our field, the first congressional action related to education was an 1817 land grant of what is now Mobile, Alabama, to the American Asylum (now the American School) for the Deaf at Hartford , Connecticut. The sale of the land provided financial stability for the school. During the Civil War, in 1864, Congress established a college for deaf students (now GaIlaudet University) in Washington, DC. In the past 40 years, Congress has established the National Technical Institute for the Deaf at the Rochester Institute of Technology and has supported the establishment of programs for deaf students within existing institutions of higher learning such as the California State University, Northridge, the University of Tennessee, and St. Paul Vocational Technical Institute . Much of this support has been incorporated into the Education of the Deaf Act. Special education legislation also has influenced the education of deaf children since the passage of Public Law 94142 , the Education of All Handicapped Act of 1975, which has evolved into the present Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Mandates for provision of services in the least restrictive environment, for a free appropriate public education, for individual and family plans, and for systematic testing have challenged educators of deaf children to develop reasonable definitions of such ambiguous terms as "least restrictive environment" and "appropriate public education." Even after intense efforts to resolve honest differences of opinion, accompanied by substantial litigation, the issues have not been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Looking past the legislation dealing with special education and education of deaf children and adults, I want to address the impact of federal attention to general education on the ways in which we are and will be teaching deaf children. With the impetus to incorporate our field into general education , along with IDEA mandates for all children to have access to the general curriculum, we are at a unique juncture in which the federal government is taking over responsibilities traditionally left to the states. Chief among the federal requirements will be more rigorous academic content, parent choice, systematic testing, and better-qualified teachers and other staff. There already has been extensive discussion of High Stakes Testing and the potential impact on high school graduation rates, and subsequent acceptance into college, of deaf students. The most important and most ambitious legislation to date is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002. To me the Act, and related earlier legislation , represents some very basic realities. First, NCLB and other general education legislation essentially ignore special education and education of deaf children, an ironic situation in view of the goal of no child left behind. Second, the legislation has an enormous effect on education of deaf children, even if they are not mentioned. Third, from my observations, classroom teachers of deaf children already have adjusted their instruction to meet the new demands. The first reality is that the legislation essentially ignores special education and deaf children, a startling fact since five to six million school age children are identified as disabled. According to a September 2002 NCLB Desktop Reference, the law has ten titles: 1. Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged 2. Preparing, Training and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals 3. Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students 4. 21st Century Schools 5. Promoting Informed Parental Choice and Innovative Programs 6. Flexibility and Accountability 7. Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education 8. Impact and Program 9. General Provisions 10. Repeals, Redesignations, and Amendments to Other Statutes Volume 147, No. 5, 2002 American Annals of the Deaf Editorial It is mystifying to me why there is not a title addressing special education and the children subsumed under that category. The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services is a major office in the United States Department of Education with a budget of several billions of dollars and with influence over education of 10 to 12% of our schoolchildren. It cannot be due to a lack of space. For example , Title VII includes...

A year ago, when Professor Dan Boudah asked me to address the annual meeting of the Council for Learning Disabilities, I accepted eagerly, believing I might share my perspectives about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its meaning for with specific learning disabilities. I had planned to focus on the provisions that relate to (a) the nondiscriminatory evaluation of suspected of having a specific learning disability and (b) the responsibilities of teachers, students, and parents. I had planned to link evaluation and responsibility to civil rights, education reform, and welfare reform. However, a year ago, we as a nation were facing different prospects than we are now. A year ago, it seemed we might focus on IDEA, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and with specific learning (SLD) rather narrowly and that it was less urgent to contextualize special education, to put it into the context of the world around it. Today, it is essential to do so. So that's what I will seek to do--give you some knowledge, from my perspective as a lawyer/policy analyst, about special education and the factors that mightily influence it. A USEFUL METAPHOR: THE RUSSIAN DOLL--NESTED DOLLS: MATYROSHKA To contextualize special education--its challenges and opportunities--allow me to use a metaphor, one I borrow (in these days of globalization and the flat world) from an unlikely source, Russia. Undoubtedly, most of us are familiar with the Russian doll--the Matyroshka. It has a small doll inside a larger one; the larger one inside an even larger one; the yet-larger one inside the largest. As we open the doll, starting with the largest doll, we find yet another, and then another, until we finally arrive at the smallest doll. The English author John LeCarre (1975) used the doll to symbolize the inner workings of the British intelligence service, in his book Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. The farther LeCarre carried his readers into the innards of the spy service, the more he uncovered the littlest, but most dangerous, doll. I suggest that we start opening the doll from the inside out, rather than the outside in. Let's start with the smallest doll--specific learning and special education--and then think about special education and the context and the factors influencing it today. TWO ISSUES INVOLVING STUDENTS WITH SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES The littlest doll represents the issues related directly to with learning disabilities. Two aspects of this tiny doll fascinate me. One relates to the discrepancy model, costs, classification, and the criticism of the dependency model. The other relates to the process for law reform and the practice called response to intervention. Both are significant because they have the potential to shape rather significantly the population called students with specific learning disabilities and the services they receive. Discrepancy Model, Escalating Costs, Alleged Overclassification, and Dependency Theory First, there is the discrepancy model for determining whether a student has a specific learning disability. That model allows educators a great deal of discretion in whether to classify a student as having SLD and thereby offer the benefits of individualized education. Encountering many whose ability and performance were not congruent, educators began to classify them as having SLD. The number of with learning consequently increased annually (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). The growth in the population concerned policymakers and others. For one thing, it escalated education costs; special education is more expensive than general education. For another, it placed some into special education who would not need those services if they had been effectively educated in the general curriculum. …

Background/Context There are few empirical studies exploring the alleged conflict between the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Objective The purpose of this study was to examine what impact the No Child Left Behind Act has had on students with disabilities. Research Design Specifically, using large data sets from three different states, this article examines how the students with disabilities subgroup has fared under the No Child Left Behind Act. Under NCLB, there are four different subgroups: race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, limited English proficiency, and students with disabilities. If any one of these subgroups fails to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) under NCLB, the entire school fails. Findings This study found that schools fail to make AYP most often because of the students with disabilities subgroup. The failure of the special education subgroup to make AYP occurs mainly because the students with disabilities subgroup is expected to maintain the exact same proficiency levels as their general education peers—a standard that has proved to be problematic because special education students often start out with lower average test scores than general education students. In addition, the students with disabilities subgroup is the only subgroup in which actual limitations on ability to learn might come into play. The existence of these limitations calls into question the wisdom of trying to close the general education–special education “achievement gap” at the same pace as the race- or class-based achievement gaps. In addition to quantitative methods, this study also used legal research techniques to examine the legal impact that the two laws are having on students with disabilities. Conclusions The study found that although judicial challenges may be one route to try to change the law, pressure at the state and local levels by educators and parents of students with disabilities working together with the U.S. Department of Education may have an impact as well.

Editorial: Waist Deep in the Big Muddy* The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Donald F. Moores Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) The first iteration of IDEA, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, passed more than 35 years ago, had several positive elements. Key among these was the concept of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for all children, regardless of the extent of the disability. The establishment of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) has had an even more far-reaching impact. Under the guidelines of IDEA, along with parents, professionals with appropriate knowledge and expertise, develop IEPs to meet the unique educational needs of children diagnosed as disabled in one of the thirteen federal disability categories. In recent years approximately six and a half million American children, or 12% of the total public school enrollment, receive educational services developed through IEPs. The mandate for education in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is the major provision that has caused the most confusion and controversy, especially, but not entirely, in the field of education of the deaf. Although there have been attempts, the term has never been defined over the past 35 years to everyone's satisfaction. In general, it has been interpreted to mean that educational placement of a disabled student contiguous to nondisabled peers is preferable to the greatest extent possible. Readers of the Annals are aware of the opposing view that educational placement of deaf children with other deaf children in many instances can increase communication and access to information more efficiently than immersion in a completely hearing environment. From this perspective placement of deaf students with other deaf students constitutes the least restrictive environment. However, because the classification "Deaf and Hard of Hearing" is one of the 13 federal "disability" categories, the impact of the mainstreaming/inclusion model interpretation of LRE has been significant. For a number of reasons, educational placement of deaf students had been moving away from residential and center schools since shortly after World War II, but it is undeniable that the LRE provision of IDEA has speeded up the process. In short, the subsumption of education of deaf students under the IDEA umbrella led to a loss of independence in our field, making it more difficult to address the unique needs of deaf students. In some ways the outcome to date has been positive. For example, our educational programs to a large extent were too narrow, concentrating on speech, English, and grammar to the detriment of math, science, social studies, and literature. There has been an important change in emphasis to adapt regular education curricula, especially with the knowledge that many, perhaps a majority, of our children will find themselves in different educational environments. Quite simply, our expectations were too low. On the other hand, we are in danger of losing our identity and being swallowed up within the far larger population of children classified as disabled. The federal government has identified approximately 70,000 deaf and hard of hearing children served under IDEA, slightly more than one child in a hundred with an IEP. If we assume one-half of these students would have severe or profound hearing loss, perhaps one child in 200 children with an IEP is deaf. Two categories—Learning Disabilities and Speech and Language Disorders—constitute the majority of disabled children under IDEA. They receive the type of attention due to them for their numbers; the parameters for them for LRE, for example, are different than they are for deaf students. If regulations for inclusion and for other elements of an IEP are based on majorities, the implications for deaf students may be of concern. Although I know that IEPs, by definition, are individualized, I also know they can be generated by computer. In sum, I think that IDEA has been a mixed [End Page 523] blessing for deaf students. Our expectations and curricula are better, but our children may be overlooked and they may not be getting the specialized services they need. The 2006 Reference issue of the Annals was devoted to the challenges of conducting research that can be generalized to large groups of deaf students if they...

This article provides an analysis of how collaborative teacher education has developed in terms of practice, discourse, and the relationship between general and special education across three historical stages. It explores how collaborative teacher education between general and special education has been positioned over time in relationship to larger national reform efforts in teacher education. Approaching the history of collaborative teacher education developmentally from these three perspectives sheds light on how today’s emphasis on collaboration and multiple certifications intersects with what it means to teach in a diverse society and what it means to prepare teachers to meet the needs of every student.

Context The context for this article is the public response to the federal role in the oversight and enforcement of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This response has been characterized by a tension between concerns about federal interference in public education and support for federal activism. Despite a number of similarities between the state and local responses to the two laws, research on the federal role in implementing NCLB has largely disregarded the long record of federal oversight and enforcement of IDEA. Purpose The purpose of this analytic essay is to address this omission through a comparative policy analysis of the oversight and enforcement mechanisms in IDEA and NCLB, the evolution of these mechanisms in the legislative process, their implementation by the Department of Education, and the interest group and academic responses to this implementation. Research Design The research design consists of a review of the statutes, Congressional documents, governmental reports, interest group position papers, policy analyses, press reports, and relevant academic literature. The author discusses the implications of this analysis for the future of the federal role in the oversight and enforcement of NCLB, and the recently reauthorized IDEA and the federal focus on improving educational outcomes. The author argues that the design of NCLB's outcomes-based accountability model, combined with its dependence on the Department of Education to provide oversight and enforcement, has produced unintended consequences at the state level, including regulatory incoherence and incentives for “gaming the system.” He notes that similar problems can be projected for the implementation of the new outcomes-based oversight and enforcement model in IDEA 2004. Recommendation The author recommends that Congress turn the accountability model in NCLB “inside out,” establishing national standards, a single national performance assessment, fixed and achievable targets for proficiency, and predefined subgroup sizes while devolving responsibility for the details of the district- and school-level accountability system to the states. In IDEA's case, he recommends setting national targets for a small number of outcome indicators while maintaining the current system of focused monitoring. He argues that this model, in combination with federal incentives for meeting performance targets, would provide for a more realistic and effective federal role in improving public education.

Although collaborative teacher education programs have grown in number over the past two decades, we still do not understand the ways in which these programs, or the practices in those programs, improve the preparation of inclusive teachers. At a time when teacher education’s viability is being questioned, it is problematic that little information exists about the validity and impact of collaborative programs. To justify collaborative teacher education programs and improve the science of teacher education more broadly, the authors propose a framework for conducting research on collaborative teacher education—one that can be used to analyze current research and inform future efforts. In this article, the authors build a framework for studying collaborative teacher education, emphasizing linkages among theory, innovation, and outcomes. The authors then analyze the collaborative teacher education literature according to this conceptual framework, drawing conclusions about the current state of collaborative teacher education research and making recommendations for the future.

Proposed 2005 Budget Sets Priorities

A framework for conducting research on collaborative teacher education

Children and youths with emotional or behavioral disorders (E/BD) present many complex challenges to educators. To address these challenges, teachers, teacher trainers, and researchers must be knowledgeable about the nature of E/BD and understand and be able to use effective, evidence-based procedures to help these students. Our purpose in this special issue is to acquaint readers with several of the critical issues and trends in the education of students with E/BD. In this issue, a number of highly respected scholars examine these issues and trends in light of the recent passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and anticipated reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).In the first article, Bradley and Henderson depict a bleak picture of how students with E/BD fare in schools. They summarize data from three national longitudinal studies supported by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs: the Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of IDEA (SLlIDEA); the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS); and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). These studies have addressed issues of interest including how schools, districts, and states are addressing students' challenging behaviors. The national data on students with E/BD are a potent tool for evaluating the impact of IDEA on students' access to services and for improving programs for students with E/BD.The authors of the next four articles address empirically supported practices in educating students with E/BD. Conroy and Brown discuss issues and barriers faced in addressing the critical needs of young children who are at risk for or have E/BD. Specifically, they conclude that the commitment does not exist for identifying young children who are at risk for or are demonstrating chronic problem behaviors and for providing effective prevention and early intervention services to them and their and families. Also, they argue that researchers have developed a number of effective early identification, prevention, and early intervention strategies; however, several significant barriers prevent the widespread implementation of those intervention practices.Mooney, Denny, and Gunter discuss the impact of recent legislative changes in NCLB and those proposed for the reauthorization of IDEA as they relate to academic instruction for students with E/BD. The authors consider the definitions and impact of highly qualified teachers, scientifically based teaching practices, annual yearly progress, and access to general education curriculum. They assert that (a) the impact on academic instruction will be largely indirect and (b) the current educational context presents a unique opportunity to develop more effective instruction in schools.In their article, Lewis, Hudson, Richter, and Johnson focus on the use of researchvalidated practices in classrooms for students with E/BD. These authors note that the use of best practices in public schools is very inconsistent. They assert that the research-to-practice gap is due largely to the lack of clear and consistent criteria to determine what constitutes research-based practices and to the absence of support structures to assist educators in implementing research-based practices. Using a systematic review process, Lewis and colleagues identify five practices that have emerged as research based. They conclude with a call for the field of special education to develop and adopt a universal set of standards to determine research-based practices and a look at school systems to support their use.Next, Leone and Cutting argue that although NCLB promotes high-quality educational services for all youths who are incarcerated, many students in correctional facilitiesparticularly those with E/BD-fail to receive high-quality educational services for a multitude of reasons. …

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderASHA Convention Coverage1 Jan 2005Schools Forum at Convention Draws 400 Marat Moore Marat Moore Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.ACC2.10012005.2 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Members from across the nation shared challenges and brainstormed strategies on more than 40 topics in roundtable discussions at the 2004 Schools Forum. ASHA’s top leaders also addressed the group, announcing the breaking news of reauthorization for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Kathleen Whitmire, ASHA’s director of school services, served as moderator of the forum, held Nov. 18 at the ASHA Convention in Philadelphia. Leadership Reports “Schools are a priority for ASHA,” said President Larry Higdon as he welcomed the crowd. Of the 100,000 ASHA-certified SLPs, 56% are employed in the schools. Higdon outlined the Association’s ongoing program work through the 2004 Focused Initiative on school issues, including advocacy and training related to IDEA and No Child Left Behind (NCLB), ongoing literacy activities, promotion of a workload approach to caseloads, and the 2005 Schools Conference set for July 8–10 in Indianapolis. Celia Hooper, vice president for professional practices in speech-language pathology, listed the outcomes related to schools programs and services, which include: an increased number of states and districts that utilize workload models access to information on IDEA an increased number of states and districts that offer salary supplements for the CCCs support from the State Education Action Team to five targeted states consultations on workload to 25 districts and four states support to 38 districts in 14 states that gained salary supplements In the area of reimbursement, ASHA’s working group on Medicaid supervision developed a technical report and position statement on ASHA-certified SLPs providing supervision to lesser qualified personnel for Medicaid-reimbursed services in the schools. In 2005, ASHA’s focused initiatives include: personnel issues, doctoral shortage, reimbursement, and evidence-based practice. Catherine (Kate) Gottfred, vice president for governmental and social services, updated participants on IDEA reauthorization, the new schools finance committee, training materials and activities related to the No Child Left Behind Act, and the 2005 public policy agenda. President-elect Dolores E. Battle noted the “exciting time we’re in” related to the confluence of IDEA, NCLB, literacy, and workload. She spoke of the importance of accurate assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students, and noted the development of new intervention models, evidence-based practice, and the ongoing personnel challenges in the schools. For CLD students, “there are issues beyond bilingualism. We all have a culture,” she said, stressing that children “need a chance to show what they can learn.” Ellen Estomin, a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Caseload Size, gave participants more background on the workload analysis approach, noting that training has been offered in more than 40 states using ASHA’s practice documents. ASHA has contacts in 25 districts and four states related to implementation of the workload approach. Former president Nancy Creaghead updated the group on literacy resources and initiatives, including practice documents, the online “ Literacy Gateway,” advocacy with the U.S. Department of Education, and other program activities in the National Office and liaison work with external organizations. Roundtable Discussions Break-out roundtable discussions drew enthusiastic responses and prompted intense discussions of dozens of topics. Those topics included: apraxia, AAC, autism, auditory processing disorder, cleft palate, cochlear implants, collaboration, assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students, fluency, evidence-based practice, literacy, IDEA, Medicaid, NCLB, recruitment of SLPs, rural challenges, salary supplements, severe disabilities, Internet treatment materials, voice disorders, urban challenges, and workload. The discussion on eligibility and dismissal issues drew such a crowd that tables had to be combined. When the discussion turned to funding, facilitator Tom Ehren pointed out that “the most important part of money is not our paycheck, but where the money comes from.” One participant noted, “In lots of schools, there are inconsistencies among SLPs about which students qualify and which don’t. A spectrum is OK, but too many discrepancies are a problem. It sends a mixed message.” Another issue raised in the group related to parents who did not want their children dismissed. Ehren said, “We talk about dismissal from the very beginning, and we celebrate dismissal.” In the roundtable on CLD students, clinicians spoke about the challenges of dealing with multiple languages and parents who juggle jobs and are often transient. One participant said, “Don’t forget about the older kids, the adolescents who are facing more academically complex challenges.” Another participant said that their staff gives parents of young children books in their native language. Other approaches in the group include after-school programs and homework clubs, and finding interpreters in the community to assist clinicians in the schools. President-elect Battle, who acted as facilitator, noted the importance of communication with middle school students. “How do you get that level of conversation with parents to help their kids in middle school?” she asked. “Often they will drop out or end up in the criminal justice system.” The group also addressed the issue of scoring tests, and the need to take the time to do comprehensive assessments. Author Notes managing editor of The ASHA Leader, can be reached at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 10Issue 1January 2005 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Jan 1, 2005 Metrics Downloaded 56 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2005 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...