Rethinking Assumptions about Teaching and Learning in General and Special Education in OHIO

1
Rethinking Assumptions about Teaching and
Learning in General and Special Education inOHIO

• CTQ National Invitational Forum
• June 28-30, 2007
• Arlington, VA

2

• My vision is that we create the kind of
  educational system where all students reach
  higher levels of achievementno matter where they
  liveno matter what their background.
• Susan Tave Zelman
• Superintendent of Public Instruction

3
OVERVIEW

• INTRODUCTIONS
• EVOLUTION AND PROCESS OF TASK FORCE
• NEXT STEPS
• CLOSING
• Louis L. Staffilino
• Associate Superintendent
• Center for the Teaching Profession
• Ohio Department of Education

4
INTRODUCTIONS

• Michele A. Lehman, PhD
• Center Director
• Center for the Teaching Profession
• 25 South Front Street, MS 501
• Columbus, Ohio 43215
• 614.752.2146
• michele.lehman_at_ode.state.oh.us

• Linda Morrow, PhD
• Professor of Education
• Muskingum College
• 163 Stormont Street
• New Concord, Ohio 43762
• 740.826.8033
• lmorrow_at_muskingum.edu

5
EVOLUTION AND PROCESS OF OHIOS SPECIAL EDUCATION
TASK FORCE (Six Emerging Phases)

• Responding to NCLB and IDEA
• Chronology
• Lessons Learned
• Questions for Discussion
• Exploring the Knowledge Base
• Chronology
• Lessons Learned
• Questions for Discussion
• Informing Our Stakeholders
• Chronology
• Lessons Learned
• Questions for Discussion

6
EVOLUTION AND PROCESS OF OHIOS SPECIAL EDUCATION
TASK FORCE (Six Emerging Phases)

• The AH HA Moment
• Chronology
• Lessons Learned
• Questions for Discussion
• Collaborative Programs in General and Special
  Education
• Chronology
• Lessons Learned
• Questions for Discussion
• Assumptions and Beliefs by Multiple Stakeholders
• Chronology
• Lessons Learned
• Questions for Discussion

7
Where We Are Today Establishing and Sustaining
a Healthy Interdependency between Public Policy
and Program Implementation for High Quality
Teacher Preparation

• Chronology
• Lessons Learned
• Questions for Discussion

8
Responding to NCLB and IDEA

• May 30, 2006 A meeting to discuss Ohios
  special education preparation programs and HQT
  was called by the Ohio Department of Education,
  Center for the Teaching Profession.
• Individuals invited included ODE staff, SERRC
  directors, and a GLECC special education expert.
• June 14, 2006 Focus on examining models of
  special education teacher preparation programs
  redesigned by other states and institutions of
  higher education (IHEs) and alternative routes to
  special education licensure.
• Another GLECC representative was added. Two IHE
  faculty members representing an administrator and
  special education were added.

9
Responding to NCLB and IDEA

• Lessons Learned
• ? Deciding who to involve in initial discussions
  is not easy.
• ? There is inconsistency between mandates
  (NCLB/IDEA) and P-12 school settings.
• ? Begin the process by establishing a common
  language.

10
Responding to NCLB and IDEA

• Questions for Discussion
• ? How did your state initiate discussions
  related to meeting HQT status for special
  education?

11
Exploring the Knowledge Base

• July 25, 2006 Knowledge-based research and best
  practice information.
• Program Options
• Dual licensure in content area and intervention
  specialist
• Full licensure in intervention specialist with
  endorsement in content area
• Full licensure in content area with endorsement
  in intervention specialist
• Split mild/moderate intervention specialist grade
  bands from K-12 to K-6 and 7-12

12

• Based upon Ohios rules for teacher preparation,
  licensure, and research, a draft of a preparation
  program for a full license in a core academic
  subject area and an intervention specialist
  endorsement aligned with the states current
  grade bands (P-3, 4-9, 7-12) was distributed for
  discussion.

13
Exploring the Knowledge Base

• Lessons Learned
• ? States and IHEs are in varying stages of
  designing special education to meet HQT.
• ? Numerous models exist to meet the federal
  mandate.

14
Exploring the Knowledge Base

• Questions for Discussion
• ? What models, if any, did you first propose?
• ? How did you decide which specific model to
  adopt?

15
Informing Our Stakeholders

• September 7-8, 2006 ODE presented information
  at the State University Education Deans (SUED)
  monthly meeting and the Ohio Association of
  Private Colleges of Teacher Education (OAPCTE)
  monthly meeting.
• September 25, 2006 ODE presented information to
  the Educator Standards Board (ESB).
• September 29, 2006 IHE special education
  faculty member reported on alternative models
  based on small focus groups and expertise from
  colleagues.

16
Informing Our Stakeholders

• Lessons Learned
• ? All stakeholder groups need to be involved from
  the beginning, even if it is only to keep them
  informed.
• ? Expectations of stakeholder groups need to be
  clearly defined at the beginning.

17
Informing Our Stakeholders

• Questions for Discussion
• ? How did you decide which stakeholders to
  include?
• ? What processes did you use to include them?
• ? How did you keep stakeholders informed?

18
The AH HA Moment

• November 2-4, 2006 CTQ state team attends
  national meeting. Meeting focused on
  collaborative programs in general and special
  education to meet the needs of students with
  disabilities (SWD).
• The Double-Bind Theory
• The majority of SWD spend a great deal of time in
  general education classrooms and not in special
  education classrooms, and
• All teachers need to be prepared to work
  effectively with students who have disabilities.
• Debate in the field about whether SWD should be
  taught 9-12th grade content indicators by general
  or special educators.
• It was realized by ODE members that an
  interdependency had emerged between general and
  special education teacher preparation programs.

19
Percent of Children with Disabilities Serviced
Outside the Regular Classroom More than 60 of
the Day

• Percent of Children with Disabilities

20

• November 8, 2006 Research associate from GLECC
  and another staff member from ODE were added to
  task force. It was decided that general education
  faculty members needed to be included at the Ohio
  table as well as higher education administrators.

21

• December 14, 2006 Task force was expanded to
  include three new faculty members from public
  general education and two new faculty members
  from private general education. It was at this
  meeting that the draft of the task force proposal
  (first distributed for discussion in August) was
  distributed to new members to share what the task
  force had been working on. New committee members
  circulated the draft to Ohios IHEs.
• December 20, 2006 Meeting with Special
  Education Personnel Development Advisory
  Committee (SEPDAC) members to help plan the
  annual statewide conference scheduled for March
  1-2, 2007.

22
The AH HA Moment

• Lessons Learned
• Assumptions Made by ODE
• All stakeholders would embrace the concept of a
  collaborative teacher prep program as the next
  right thing to do.
• Assumptions Made in Higher Education
• Some IHEs expressed concern that the state will
  eventually eliminate special education teacher
  preparation programs.
• Some IHEs expressed concern that the professional
  education core curriculum would be revised
  without input.
• There is NOT a common understanding of what HQT
  means operationally.
• ? This is a problem that needs to be fixed
  by special education only.

23
The AH HA Moment

• Questions for Discussion
• ? How is HQT operationally defined for meeting
  the needs of SWD in grades 7-12?
• ? How are students who have disabilities taught
  the core curriculum?

24
Collaborative Programs in General and Special
Education

• January 19, 2007 Based on research and best
  practice presented at CTQ a statewide meeting on
  Collaborative Programs in General and Special
  Education was held.
• Task force was expanded to include a dean and
  special education faculty member representing
  OAPCTE and a dean and special education faculty
  member representing SUED. Second special
  education faculty member from a public IHE also
  added.

25

• February 14, 2007 ODE participated in a video
  conference phone call with CA on preparation
  programs for low-incidence disabilities.
• February 15, 2007 Ohio Education Association
  representative and former K-12 special education
  teacher and Ohio Federation of Teachers
  representative and current K-12 special education
  teacher added to task force.

26

• February 20, 2007 First expanded task force
  meeting.
• Goals for the meeting were stated
• Ohios children need to come first.
• The spirit of NCLB is to ensure that ALL
  students, including SWD, receive instruction that
  is rich in content from a highly qualified
  teacher.

27

• Idea for an RFP that would support IHEs to
  design and pilot a collaborative program in
  general and special education was presented to
  the task force.
• Blended program models in four-year teacher
  preparation programs from other states were
  shared.

28
Collaborative Programs in General and Special
Education

• Lessons Learned
• Change is inevitable. Growth is optional when
  ownership by multiple stakeholders is perceived
  to be at risk.
• Perceptions continue that general and special
  education teacher prep programs are being
  threatened and lack of adequate representation on
  task force.
• Concern expressed that even if Ohio could design
  a collaborative teacher prep program it would not
  be able to pass SPA standards.
• The level of trust among ALL involved
  stakeholders impacts progress.
• General education faculty view program buckets
  already full.

29
Collaborative Programs in General and Special
Education

• Questions for Discussion
• ? How did your state initiate discussions related
  to developing collaborative models?
• ? How will collaborative programs in general and
  special education enhance or hinder SPA program
  approval?

30
Assumptions and Beliefs by Multiple Stakeholders

• March 1-2, 2007 SEPDAC annual statewide
  meeting.
• March 8-9, 2007 Second report to SUED and
  OAPCTE.
• March 16, 2007 Second expanded task force
  meeting. Teacher models from several more states
  were shared. New director for Office of
  Exceptional Children and special education
  teacher representing Ohios eight large urban
  districts added to task force.

31

• March 21, 2007 Statewide meeting held for
  special education faculty.
• March 26, 2007 Statewide meeting held for
  general education faculty.
• Preservice and inservice, collaborative teaching
  model with student teaching where both are
  working together.
• Divide K-12 to K-6 and 7-12 (get HQT in one or
  two content areas).
• Start with Intervention Specialist (IS) license
  then go to alternative routes to get Highly
  Qualified (endorsement or not). ISpecialist
  remains K-12 and serves as specialist at 7-12
  levels.
• What our Model looks like?
• Course compression
• Banding the licensure K-3, 4-8, 9-12 (plus
  specialized areas), or other combinations
• Collaboration between regular education special
  education in program development
• Do not eliminate special education at the
  undergraduate level
• Increase special education content in regular
  education
• Variety of models
• March 26, 2007 Second presentation to the
  Educator Standards Board.

32

• April 26, 2007 Third expanded task force
  meeting to hear summaries from special and
  general education faculty meetings.
• Agreement on development of a common professional
  and pedagogical core for both general and special
  education.
• ODE on national phone conference CTQ Action
  Guide for State Policymakers and Higher
  Education State and University Examples.
• Decision to postpone design of RFP until
  consensus could be reached.

33
Assumptions and Beliefs by Multiple Stakeholders

• Lessons Learned
• Variety of differences in how Ohios P-12 public
  education system is designed to meet the needs of
  SWD make it difficult to adopt collaborative
  program.
• Do not assume official representation just
  because people are members of other stakeholder
  groups.
• Despite options presented, some IHEs continue to
  resist opportunity to design/implement pilot
  program in general and special education.
• Some IHEs feel special education should be its
  own core subject area due to the content pedagogy
  and not be held responsible to meet HQT.

34
Assumptions and Beliefs by Multiple Stakeholders

• Lessons Learned
• Special education professionals are strategy
  specialists who should support content
  specialists, not replace them.
• Lack of collaboration as well as communication
  between ODE and IHEs.
• Some IHEs feel that governing authority over
  changing policy for special education should not
  be SEA but faculty experts.
• Special education in teacher preparation will
  eventually disappear.
• Involving IHE deans raised the level of
  importance and facilitated expansion of
  discussions.

35
Assumptions and Beliefs by Multiple Stakeholders

• Questions for Discussion
• ? How have states handled the disconnect between
  federal law, state policy, and district-specific
  implementation?

36
Where We Are Today Establishing and
Sustaining a Healthy Interdependency between
Public Policy and Program Implementation for High
Quality Teacher Preparation

• May 9, 2007 ODE/NCATE meeting in Washington,
  D.C. to explore how collaborative programs may
  enhance or hinder SPA program approval.
• May 17, 2007 Statewide meeting for higher
  education faculty in administrative leadership to
  discuss special education and HQT criteria.
• June 28, 2007 CTQ National Forum Sharing Your
  States Promising Practices in Arlington, VA.

37
Where We Are Today Establishing and Sustaining
a Healthy Interdependency between Public Policy
and Program Implementation for High Quality
Teacher Preparation.

• Lessons Learned
• ? Patience is a virtue. The process takes time.
• ? Establishing trust is essential for change to
  occur.
• ? Need to define how HQT for 7-12 will be
  operationalized before moving forward.
• ? Resources Model Standards for Licensing
  General and Special Education Teacher of Students
  with Disabilities.

38
Where We Are Today Establishing and Sustaining
a Healthy Interdependency between Public Policy
and Program Implementation for High Quality
Teacher Preparation.

• Questions for Discussion
• ? Are there additional potential barriers we have
  not recognized?
• ? Are there steps we have not taken that would be
  helpful?

39
NEXT STEPS

• Specifically operationalize how Ohio will define
  HQT for 7-12 special education.
• Decide on whether an RFP to develop pilot
  model(s) is still viable.
• What next steps might you take if you were Ohio?

40
CLOSING

• Michele A. Lehman, PhD
• Center Director
• Center for the Teaching Profession
• 25 South Front Street, MS 501
• Columbus, Ohio 43215
• 614.752.2146
• michele.lehman_at_ode.state.oh.us

• Linda Morrow, PhD
• Professor of Education
• Muskingum College
• 163 Stormont Street
• New Concord, Ohio 43762
• 740.826.8033
• lmorrow_at_muskingum.edu