Meeting the Demands for Specialized Teachers of Students with Severe Disabilities

Abstract

This paper describes a federally funded, 5-year (1989 to 1994) personnel preparation program for unendorsed teachers of students with severe disabilities in Virginia. The program involved a cooperative union of training and technical assistance from 3 state universities and the Virginia State Department of Education. The program was designed to be inexpensive to participating teachers and minimize their travel, to allow supervised application of content schools, and to meet state endorsement requirements for severe disabilities. Teachers were selected for their demonstrated teaching talents and their predicted job stability. The 61 teachers who completed the program participated in 1 of 3 repeated training cycles. This article presents evaluation findings on the training program and explores other solutions to personnel shortages in low incidence disability areas in most state.

Critical Features of Special Education Teacher Preparation

“…University of Washington faculty from general and special education extended this type of collaboration by co-teaching courses. Faculty collaboration even occurred across universities to deliver special programs, e.g., the alternative certification program offered by the University of Virginia, George Mason University, and Virginia Commonwealth University to prepare teachers to work with children and youth with severe disabilities (Snell, Martin, & Orelove, 1997). What was unclear in many descriptions that focused mainly on specialized programs within larger teacher education programs was the extent of faculty collaboration beyond the specialized programs.…”

“…Some teacher education programs adopted what appeared to be more positivist approaches to teacher education (Grisham-Brown, et al, 2000;Miller, et al, 1999;Snell, et al, 1997;Russell, et al, 1992). Faculty in these programs viewed competencies as knowledge and skills to be acquired in course work and then applied in practical settings.…”

“…For instance, in a collaborative alternative certification program implemented across three institutions, faculty selected master teachers from various technical assistance centers to monitor practicing teachers participating in the program. 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).…”

“…Most of these programs combined direct and indirect assessment methods (Aksamit, Hall, & Ryan, 1990;Benner & Judge, 2000;Cambone, Zambone, & Suarez, 1996;Corbett, et al, 1998;Snell, et al, 1997). In an alternative certification/masters program at Johns Hopkins University, faculty evaluate the effectiveness of their program using: (a) direct observations of student teachers by the university supervisor and district personnel, (b) surveys completed by principals and special education supervisors rating graduates' competence, (c) surveys from supervisory personnel comparing beginning teachers from traditional certification programs to graduates of the alternative certification programs, (d) performance evaluation data on beginning teachers from traditional certification programs, (e) self-report data from program participants rating their professional growth and development over the course of the project, and (f) certification or graduation rates of program participants (Rosenberg & Rock, 1994).…”

“…Faculty in these programs viewed competencies as knowledge and skills to be acquired in course work and then applied in practical settings. For instance, the collaborative masters program between George Mason University, University of Virginia, and Virginia Commonwealth University (Snell, et al, 1997) organized course offerings to include the 123 Program Quality Indicators of educational services for students with severe disabilities along with competencies set forth by the Virginia Department of Education. The Program Quality Indicators represented research-validated practice.…”