Exceptional Children 2015, Vol. 82(1) 25 –43 © 2015 The Author(s) DOI: 10.1177/0014402915598782 ec.sagepub.com

Special Features Article

As part of Exceptional Children’s series of Special Feature articles, we were asked to con- sider the future of personnel preparation and special education. This is a tall order given that personnel preparation encompasses a wide breadth and depth of topics. Thus, we focused our work around one overarching question we believe is essential to consider as we look to the future of special education personnel prepara- tion: What frameworks might teacher educa- tors draw from to promote special education teacher effective performance? In answering this question, we first summarize current trends in the context of schooling and special educa- tion (i.e., the Common Core State Standards [CCSS], multitiered systems of support [MTSS]) and what these contexts demand of special education teachers (SETs). As part of this discussion we present a case for why the time is right to shift attention to issues of qual- ity in special education personnel preparation. Next, we present a model for fostering effec- tive SET performance grounded in literature on the science of learning and present approaches

and strategies in teacher education that support what we have learned from this literature. We conclude with implications for how special education personnel preparation might be refo- cused, particularly given current constraints on schools and colleges of education, to better promote this model for fostering effective per- formance.

What the Current Context Demands of SETs

Today, more than any time in history, SETs are expected to play a role in developing and supporting rigorous content instruction for

598782 ECXXXX10.1177/0014402915598782Exceptional ChildrenLeko et al. research-article2015

1The University of Kansas 2The University of Florida 3Queens College, City University of New York

Corresponding Author: Melinda M. Leko, Department of Special Education, University of Kansas, 1122 West Campus Rd. Lawrence, KS 66045. E-mail: leko@ku.edu

Envisioning the Future of Special Education Personnel Preparation in a Standards-Based Era

Melinda M. Leko1, Mary T. Brownell2, Paul T. Sindelar2, and Mary Theresa Kiely3

Abstract The authors consider the future of special education personnel preparation by responding to an overarching question: What frameworks might teacher educators use as a basis to promote special education teacher effective performance now and in the future? In answering this question, they summarize current trends in the context of schooling and special education (i.e., Common Core State Standards [CCSS], multi-tiered systems of support [MTSS]) and what these contexts demand of special education teachers. The authors propose a practice-based model for fostering effective special education teacher performance. Grounded in the science of learning, the model includes approaches in teacher education that align with this literature. Implications for implementing the model are provided, which recognize current constraints on schools and colleges of education, to better promote this model for fostering effective performance.

26 Exceptional Children 82(1)

students with disabilities that is technology- rich. Pressure for students with disabilities and their teachers to meet high standards is evident in a national movement that all stu- dents graduate “college and career ready” by, among other things, successfully meeting a rigorous core of content standards for various subject areas (Haager & Vaughn, 2013a). Many states have adopted the CCSS (National Governors Association Center for Best Prac- tices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). The CCSS support clear outcomes teachers are expected to teach to ensure stu- dents, including those with disabilities, can compete successfully in a global economy (Common Core State Standards Initiative, n.d.). The CCSS provide little guidance to ensure students with disabilities are success- ful in meeting the demands of a more chal- lenging curriculum, leaving general education teachers and SETs with the task of determin- ing how to provide students with disabilities appropriate instruction that achieves these high goals (Haager & Vaughn, 2013a), includ- ing instruction in areas in which teachers may need considerable professional development (PD), such as writing (Graham & Harris, 2013).

At the same time states are adopting more rigorous content standards, they are simulta- neously implementing MTSS for preventing academic and behavioral difficulties through high quality, research-based core instruction provided to all students and increasingly intensive, personalized tiers of intervention that incorporate evidence-based interventions when students are unable to respond success- fully (Chard & Linan-Thompson, 2008). Although models of MTSS vary, most make use of a minimum of three tiers of instruction and support, with general education teachers holding the majority of responsibility for core instruction at Tier 1 and SETs delivering intensive, personalized instruction at Tier 3 (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012).

To succeed in school contexts driven by MTSS and the CCSS, SETs need to have extensive knowledge of how to support stu- dents with disabilities in achieving rigorous content standards. Although it could be argued

this requisite knowledge has characterized the work of special educators for quite some time, today’s context ups the ante, requiring SETs to be extremely proficient in the content, interventions, assessments, and technology to support students’ learning needs (Lignugaris- Kraft, Sindelar, McCray, & Kimerling, 2014). Rhetoric from Our Responsibility, Our Prom- ise (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012) underscores the greater demands placed on teachers: “higher expectations for students have led to higher expectations for teaching and leading” (p. 27).

Special education teachers will need well- developed collaboration skills to communi- cate and work with various service providers in the ways required to design cohesive and precise instruction. This collaboration will need a much tighter focus compared to past models wherein SETs provided consultative services to general educators or recommended accommodations that would allow students with disabilities to access the general educa- tion curriculum (Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson, 2010). In current contexts, collab- oration will center on (a) collecting and inter- preting initial and ongoing assessment data, (b) planning precise classroom and interven- tion instruction that is carefully coordinated and targets the key CCSS content and skills students with disabilities need to master (c) measuring students’ response to classroom or intervention instruction, and (d) making changes to instructional plans based on the assessment data. All of this will have to be coordinated across multiple tiers, further necessitating SETs be skilled collaborators and data-literate (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012).

SETs will also need more extensive cur- ricular knowledge, particularly (a) the general education curriculum and the literacy and numeracy demands the curriculum places on students and (b) literacy and mathematics strategies for intervening in student learning (Graham & Harris, 2013; Haager & Vaughn, 2013b; Powell, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2013). Closely tied to this curricular knowledge is the need for more extensive knowledge of technolo- gies that can make curriculum accessible to

Leko et al. 27

students with disabilities and support their learning, as well as knowledge of how learn- ing plays out in increasingly technology-rich modern learning environments (Smith & Kennedy, 2014). The bottom line is SETs will have to be more knowledgeable, skilled, and responsive given the more challenging cur- riculum demands placed on students and the high stakes accountability systems in place to assess students’ achievement.

Quality Special Education Personnel Preparation

The current schooling contexts we have described, as well as more than 2 decades of criticism being waged against teacher prepara- tion housed in higher education (e.g., Hess, 2001; Walsh, 2001), has placed increased pres- sure on colleges of education to demonstrate they are capable of producing teachers who are able to provide more rigorous, effective content instruction. Political pundits assert traditional teacher preparation has been ineffective in pre- paring preservice teachers to be able to secure adequate student achievement gains. Such vocal opposition to formal teacher preparation has spurred a heated debate between deregula- tionists and formalists regarding how to reform teacher preparation (McLeskey & Ross, 2004). As we look to the future of special education personnel preparation, we envision this debate lasting for quite some time and without a pre- dictable outcome. As formalists who champion the stance that improved SET quality will result from improved personnel preparation, we believe it is critical that the field makes strides in garnering public support for this position. Two ways to do this are (a) to redesign person- nel programs so they are better aligned with what is known from research on the science of learning and (b) bolster the research base undergirding SETs’ work.

To develop the knowledge and skills nec- essary to meet the heightened rigor and accountability of current schooling contexts, both preparation and policy reform will be required. Historic supply and demand issues in special education have resulted in broad certification and licensure patterns and

multiple pathways into the classroom (Brownell et al., 2010; Geiger et al., 2014). In most states, SETs are licensed to teach in PK–12 settings and respond to a variety of student needs (Geiger et al., 2014). These broad licensing patterns have resulted in preparation programs that are designed to prepare SETs to provide instruction to stu- dents across multiple content areas and grade levels, co-teach with general educa- tion teachers, and collaborate with parents. In addition, shortages have encouraged a variety of approaches to preparation, includ- ing brief coursework preservice teachers complete after they secure a bachelor’s degree, 2 to 4 years of preparation in more traditional undergraduate programs, and res- idency programs in which special educators take positions in public schools while they are completing teacher preparation course- work (Boe, 2014; Rosenberg, Boyer, Sindelar, & Misra, 2007). Such heterogene- ity across programs and lack of focus within programs are not likely to provide beginning SETs with the practice-based opportunities they need to learn to teach more effectively. The time to address this challenge is now.

For the first time in the field’s history, pressure to keep pace with unabated SET demand has decreased. The number of SETs employed in U.S. public schools recently has declined (Boe, 2014). Between 2005 and 2009, the number of SETs employed in U.S. public schools fell to 389,904 (IDEA Data Center, n.d.), a drop of 8.8%. SET demand decreased in 30 states, and in 12 states, the decline exceeded 10%. The decrease in total demand for SETs was associated with a con- current 3.9% decline in the number of stu- dents with disabilities, most of whom have learning disabilities. For once, it may be possible to focus attention on issues of qual- ity over quantity in special education per- sonnel preparation. Yet what would a teacher education program that focused more atten- tion on issues of quality look like? What research on effective learning and teacher education might support the design of pro- grams that help special educators acquire the knowledge and skills to work within MTSS

28 Exceptional Children 82(1)

and help students with disabilities achieve CCSS goals?

A Practice-Based Framework for Fostering Effective Teaching

If MTSS is to be implemented as a mecha- nism for helping students with disabilities achieve CCSS, then special education person- nel preparation must be able to produce teach- ers who can work successfully in such a context. It will be difficult to do this if three fundamental aspects of teacher preparation remain the same. First, teacher preparation programs cannot continue to prepare SETs broadly and hope they will develop the depth of knowledge and skill fluency needed to teach rigorous content within an MTSS frame- work. Second, to develop competence, teacher education programs must incorporate ways of preparing SETs that help them to practice using these essential knowledge and skills; practice opportunities should be grounded in research and include collaboration practice with general education teachers. Third, gen- eral education teacher preparation will need to change in rather substantial ways to ensure preservice teachers have the skills and abili- ties to work within an MTSS framework, an important point that requires discussion beyond the scope of this article.

In accordance with Grossman and McDonald (2008), we propose special education teacher preparation return to a competency-based approach, popular in the 1970s and 1980s, with a few new twists. Special education (and general education) preparation should consider moving away from teaching about practice to construct- ing more opportunities for candidates to practice teaching in structured, carefully sequenced, and closely monitored practical experiences, ones in which special education teacher candidates prac- tice the knowledge and skills they will need to collaborate around and implement tiered instruc- tion. Although this idea may not seem novel, it is not the status quo for teacher education (both in general and special education) for a number of reasons within and outside teacher educators’ control (Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009; Grossman & McDonald, 2008).

For once, it may be possible to focus our attention on issues of

quality over quantity in special education personnel preparation. Yet what

would a teacher education program that focused more attention on issues

of quality look like?

In a study of preparation experiences across various helping professions, Grossman et al. (2005) found teacher education provides fewer opportunities for novices to practice elements of teaching and receive immediate feedback compared to other professions (Grossman et al., 2005). According to Gross- man and McDonald (2008),

while the field of teacher education has developed a number of pedagogical approaches that enable novices to study the complexity of teaching practice in some detail . . . university-based teacher educators leave the development of pedagogical skill in the interactive aspects of teaching almost entirely to field experiences, the component of professional education over which we have the least control. (p. 189)

Further, Grossman and McDonald argued it will be important for programs to reconsider how they can begin to structure such practice without depending entirely on PK–12 cooper- ating teachers who supervise preservice teach- ers during field experiences.

Although there are examples of SET prepa- ration programs that have made concerted efforts to structure experiences with an eye toward providing candidates with appropri- ately sequenced, scaffolded, and structured practice-based opportunities (e.g., Ross & Lignugaris-Kraft, in press), it would be diffi- cult to argue convincingly that this is common practice. As such, we present a framework, based on what is known about expertise and what promotes its development, that could guide the design of special education personnel preparation to be more practice-based. Funda- mental to a practice-based approach, however, is clarity about what special education preser- vice teachers will.