Policy to Practice: Improving the Teaching of Students with Disabilities

1
Center for Improving Teacher QualityNational
Invitational Forum

• Policy to Practice Improving the Teaching of
  Students with Disabilities
• October 6-8, 2005

2
VI/OM Teacher Shortage and Teacher
TrainingIssues Related to Highly Qualified
Teachers

• Kay Alicyn Ferrell, Ph.D.
• Executive Director
• National Center on Low-Incidence Disabilities
• At the University of Northern Colorado
• Campus Box 146, Greeley, CO 80639
• 800-395-2693 www.NCLID.unco.edu

3
Incidence of Visual Impairment

• 1 in 4 children has some visual anomaly (but most
  are correctable)
• 1 in 500 children has a visual impairment serious
  enough to be classified as partially sighted
• 1 in 1000 can be classified as legally blind
• IDEA .05 of school-age population served as
  visually impaired

4
The Problem

• Severe shortage of teachers in visual
  disabilities
• Based on a recommended ratio of 8 students to 1
  educator,
• 11,700 teachers 11,700 OM specialists needed
  by 2010
• Mason, Davidson McNerney, 2000

5
Context

• Goal 3 of the National Agenda
• National Plan For Training Personnel To Serve
  Children with Blindness and Visual Impairment
  (NPTP) (2000).
• Office of Special Education Programs, US
  Department of Education
• University Summit

6
National Center for Leadership in Visual
Impairment

• Collaborative effort by Pennsylvania College of
  Optometry and a consortium of universities across
  the US to increase numbers of doctoral-level
  personnel
• Model of doctoral preparation
• Substantial funding
• 25 new docs over next 4 years

7
Goal 3 of theNational Agenda

• "Universities, with a minimum of one full-time
  faculty member in the area of visual impairment,
  will prepare a sufficient number of educators of
  students with visual impairments to meet
  personnel needs throughout the country."

8
What Do Teachers of Students with Visual
Impairments Do Thats Different??
9
Teacher preparation involves

• Specialized skills (e.g., braille, orientation
  and mobility, knowledge of medical supports)
• More credit hours (generally more than the
  Masters degrees 30 hours)
• Extensive field work

10
Teachers prepared fora variety of roles

• Itinerant
• Resource room (usually found only in large
  cities)
• Inclusive classes
• Separate classes
• Specialized schools

11
Teachers prepared for a heterogeneous population

• Typical cognitive development
• Total blindness to near-normal vision
• Total deafness to hard of hearing
• Multiple disabilities
• No two alike, but
• More alike than different.

12
Teaching is different

• More than adjustments to the learning
  environment
• More than modifications of instructional methods
• More than adaptation of curricula
• More than use of positive behavioral supports and
  interventions
• More than accommodations . . .

13
Teaching children with low-incidence disabilities
means

• Interpretation
• Explanation
• Building relationships to concepts
• Different perspectives
• Non-visual or limited visual
• Non-auditory/visual -- augmented auditory
• Spoken language or sign
• Non-motoric
• Mediation

14
But, simply not enough of them . . .
15
New Specialists Per State, 2003-04

• 4.0 Teachers
• 2.6 OM Instructors
• .4 Dual-certified Teachers/OM
• .8 Deafblind Teachers

16
University Programs in Blindness
States in the Northeast Regional Center for
Vision Education (n 6)
States with university programs in both TSVI and
OM (n 11)
States with University programs in TSVI (n 15)
17
New BVI Educators, 2003-04
2
4
42
42
22
71
0
2
0
33
6
15
21
38
8
20
6
10
9
8
14
7
24
0
32
Source Goal 3, The National Agenda
18
All Personnel Types
19
Teacher Candidates
20
New Completers
21
Trends

• New programs started in Iowa, Louisiana,
  Missouri, New Mexico, West Virginia
• Enrollments seem to be increasing
• Completion rates somewhat stagnant
• More multiple competency completers

22
Why Stagnant?

• Increased demands on teachers generally
• Multi-competency programs require longer to
  complete
• Online programs may take longer to complete
• Fewer full-time students (or more full-time
  employed)
• Implications of highly qualified

23
What Does Highly Qualified Mean?
24
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (and
incorporated into IDEIA)

• At least a B.A.
• Full state certification
• Not emergency, provisional, or temporary
• Subject matter knowledge
• Elementary
• Middle and secondary

25
Where does the classroom teacher leave off, and
the low-incidence teacher begin?
26

• Can the classroom teacher teach these specialized
  skills?
• Does the classroom teacher want to?
• Would the classroom teacher then be considered
  highly qualified if he or she did?

27
Fears

• Waivers
• 2 states already waive residential schools from
  the highly qualified requirements
• Inclusion compromised
• Children with more severe disabilities placed in
  more restrictive environments
• Highly Qualified fluctuates from year-to-year
  and student-to-student

28
Where do you draw the line?

• A special education teacher who provides only
  consultative services to a highly qualified
  teacher . . . Should be considered a highly
  qualified special education teacher if such
  teacher meets the requirements of Section
  602(10(A). Such consultation services do not
  include instruction in core academic subjects but
  may include adjustments to the learning

29

• environment, modifications of instructional
  methods, adaptation of curricula, the use of
  positive behavioral supports and interventions,
  or the design, use or implementation of
  appropriate accommodations to meet the needs of
  individual children.
• House Report 779, 108th Cong., 2nd Session 171
  (2004)

30
More Fears

• Shortage of low-incidence teachers becomes even
  more acute
• Why would anyone do this to themselves?

31
Why is this a problem?
32
How Many Children Need Specialized Services?APH
53,082
33
Magnitude of the Inaccuracy
34
Only a Piece of the Pie . . .
35
The Question

• Can a regional approach to low incidence
  personnel preparation lead to
• Better outcomes for students with low incidence
  disabilities,
• An increased supply of specialized teachers, and
• Greater efficiencies from economies of scale?

36
Regional Collaboration Premonitions

• Increased competition.
• More programs terminate.
• Greater teacher shortage.
• Loss of autonomy and academic freedom.
• Loss of position within university.
• Federal grants cannot possibly be large enough.

37
Regional Collaboration Promises

• Better use of federal dollars.
• One person programs become multi-site,
  multi-delivery programs.
• Decrease competition.
• Share resources.
• Stronger programs.
• More teachers for more children.

38
The Future

• NCLVI
• www.pco.edu/nclvi.htm
• NERCVE
• http//www.nercve.umb.edu/index.php?pagehome

39
Together we can do more.

• The National Center on Low-Incidence Disabilities
• at the
• University of Northern Colorado
• Campus Box 146
• Greeley, CO 80639
• www.NCLID.unco.edu