A Partnership to Alleviate Special Education Teacher Shortages: University and Public School Collaboration

Abstract

Collaboration between a university (IHE) and a local education agency (LEA) resulted in the selection and training of 12 nontraditional individuals to teach students with serious behavioral and learning problems. Candidates, recruited from within the LEA, participated in a two-year graduate program consisting of ten courses and two practica. The goal of the program was to alleviate teacher shortages in special education, particularly in regard to minority teacher underrepresentation. This paper details (a) the collaboration between the IHE and the LEA, (b) the specifics of the graduate program, (c) logistical issues involved in the implementation of the program, and (d) future directions planned for this successful collaborative effort.

Critical Features of Special Education Teacher Preparation

“…The programs in the AACTE and IRA studies adopted constructivist orientations to learning, although special education programs represented a continuum from positivist to constructivist. Some special education programs did not provide sufficient description to determine an orientation (Ashcroft, 1990;Clarken & LeRoy, 1998;Easterbrooksand practicing in the classroom (e.g., Grisham-Brown, et al, 2000;King-Sears, et al, 1992;Langone, et al, 1991;Rosenberg & Rock, 1994).…”

“…These master teachers helped participants implement researchbased instructional practices in their classrooms (Snell, et al, 1997) and supervised the quality of that implementation. In the most sophisticated instances of collaboration, entire school faculties, and sometimes school district personnel, collaborated around the following activities: (a) planning the teacher education program, (b) identifying quality placements for teacher education students, (c) selecting students for the program, (d) mentoring students, (e) evaluating their progress in the classroom, (f) co-teaching courses in the teacher education program, and (g) participating in training to become a mentor teacher (e.g., Affleck & Lowenbraum, 1995;Emond, 1995;King-Sears, et al, 1992;May, et al, 1989;Hall, Reed, & McSwine, 1997). Clear examples of programs that demonstrate most of these features can be found at the University of South Florida (Epanchin & Wooley-Brown, 1993) and at Johns Hopkins University (King-Sears, et al, 1992).…”

“…Other programs relied heavily on mentor teachers who were carefully selected and trained to supervise teachers. For instance, in a collaborative program developed with a nearby school district, university supervisors from Johns Hopkins University worked with mentor teachers to observe and evaluate students (King-Sears, Rosenberg, Ray, & Fagen, 1992). Mentor teachers and university supervisors observed students weekly using a structured interview process called the "supervision throughput model" (O'Shea, Hoover, & Carroll, 1988), which involves collaboration between the practicum student, university supervisor, and cooperating teacher to identify areas in need of improvement and provide coaching to address those needs.…”

Meeting the Supply/Demand Requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

“…Considering that special education represents only a small proportion of all teachers, this approach could have a significant impact on the supply of teachers for this field. These data might also be important to consider when assessing the merits of alternative licensure programs such as those described by Smith-Davis and Murray (1991) and King-Sears, Rosenberg, Ray, and Fagen (1992). Are alternative programs really necessary given that presenting prospective teachers with accurate employability information might well prompt changes in career choices?…”

Designing Effective Field Experiences For Nontraditional Preservice Special Educators

“…Many of these programs (e.g., King-Sears, Rosenberg, Ray, & Fagen, 1992;Welch & Kukic, 1988) have been designed by and among IHEs in close collaboration with state education agencies (SEAs) and local education agencies (LEAs) and include efforts to recruit nontraditional populations to special education (i.e., currently practicing teachers or instructional assistants, persons in other fields, mature individuals over the age of the traditional undergraduate, etc.). Although only a sampling of collaborative graduate programs, the King-Sears et al (1992) and Welch and Kukic (1988) (NUCEA, 1994) indicate several interesting trends.…”