Abstract
The federal government plays an indispensable role in preparing special education personnel to become teacher educators in higher education. The 2011 Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment study documents a continued supply–demand imbalance of special education faculty. It also documents effectiveness and impact of the Office of Special Education Program’s leadership (doctoral) preparation initiative. To prevent diminished academic improvement for students with disabilities, recommendations are provided to strengthen the federal role as the nation moves forward to abate a pending special education faculty of unprecedented magnitude. A rationale and strategy for continued federal investment during challenging budget times are presented.
Since the original passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975 (now the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]), Congress has continuously authorized and appropriated funding for Part D of the Act, Personnel Preparation. By annually appropriating funds for Part D, Congress has clearly recognized the importance of the federal role in preparing a skilled professional workforce. This workforce is critical to the successful implementation of Part B of the Act, Formula Grant Program, as the cornerstone of national policy to assure a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities. This skilled workforce includes the preparation of doctoral-level special education leaders in universities and colleges nationwide. As suggested by Hardman and West (2003),
The link between Part B and Part D is obvious: the success of FAPE is dependent upon quality personnel, and the availability of such personnel is dependent upon quality teacher education and related services programs taught by university and college faculty.” (p. 206)
Each year, during the nearly four decades since the original passage of IDEA, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), has funded doctoral-level leadership training through Part D. This federal support has resulted in a supply of thousands of teacher educators engaged in preparing the nation’s next generation of special education teachers and related services personnel (Kleinhammer-Trammill, Peters, & Fiore, 2011).
Federal Policy Implications Resulting From the 2001 and 2011 National Studies
In 2001, Smith, Pion, Tyler, Sindelar, and Rosenberg conducted the first-ever, comprehensive study of the Leadership Training Program under Part D. This groundbreaking investigation was followed by a second study in 2011 (Smith, Montrosse, Robb, Tyler, & Young, 2011). Both investigations were commissioned by OSEP and focused on understanding whether a critical need for the federal government to play a major role in meeting the needs of students with disabilities through special education leadership (doctoral) preparation exists.
The 2001 Study of Special Education Leadership Personnel
In 2001, the investigation now referred to as “The 2001 Special Education Faculty Shortage Study” (Smith et al., 2001) clearly articulated the significance of the federal role in leadership training and the resulting negative impact on each state’s ability to provide FAPE should funding for the program ever be reduced or cut altogether. Most importantly, the study reported that any loss of federal financial support for leadership training would result in a significant decrease in the number of students with disabilities taught by well-prepared, effective, and qualified teachers. The result would be a corresponding decrease in achievement levels for students with disabilities. In summary, the 2001 study established an indisputable link between the shortage of special education faculty in universities and colleges and the pervasive shortage of special education teachers.
During the subsequent decade, Congress responded to the recommendations of the 2001 study in myriad ways (West & Stringer, 2005). For example, the 2003, 2004, and 2005 Senate Labor/HHS/Education Committee reports reiterated the need for a federal role in addressing the special education faculty shortage. Fiscal year (FY) 2003 funding for Part D included an increase of US $2.5 million specifically targeted to the preparation of new special education faculty in universities and colleges nationwide. Legislation introduced in the House of Representatives (HR 609, The College Access and Opportunity Act) included new provisions to address the shortage of special education faculty such as in the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) Program. The new provisions provided for a competitive priority to prepare individuals for the professoriate who would commit to training highly qualified general education teachers to effectively teach students with disabilities. Although this particular provision was not included in the final version of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, similar provisions were. For example, the law now requires that all universities and colleges, which prepare general education teachers, must ensure that these educators are trained to instruct diverse students, including those with disabilities.
In addition to Congressional action, OSEP made numerous changes to Part D, including priority funding for graduate students who aspire to become teacher educators. It also substantially increased appropriations, as shown in Table 1, for its leadership (doctoral) training initiative. This investment is important for it provides not only the infrastructure needed to support doctoral programs but also the funding that allows students to graduate quicker and devote themselves to full-time study, both markers of those who become college and university faculty (see Tyler & Montrosse, 2012, [in this issue]).
Funding History for Leadership Training Under IDEA Part D, Personnel Preparation
Note: IDEA = Individuals With Disabilities Education Act; FY = fiscal year.
Source: Office of Special Education Programs.
The original goals for the personnel preparation program under Part D have been sustained since the passage of IDEA. They include the following: (a) ensure a sufficient quality of special education and related services personnel, (b) increase the quality of such personnel, and (c) enhance the capacity of state education agencies and institutions of higher education to meet the personnel needs of the local education agencies. However, as reported by Smith (2012, [in this issue]) and Smith, Robb, West, and Tyler (2010), the implementation of these policy goals looks very different today than it did when the initial faculty shortage study was published in 2001.
The 2011 Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment
As reported in the 2011 Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment (SEFNA) study (Smith et al., 2011), there has been steady progress during the past decade in addressing the pervasive special education faculty shortage in universities and colleges nationwide. The number of doctoral preparation programs has increased by 16%, the number of doctoral student enrollments has increased by 7%, the number of graduates has increased by 28%, and program capacity has increased by 20%. The percentage of graduates assuming higher education faculty roles (rather than leadership roles in public education) increased from less than 50% to 63% (see Smith & Montrosse, 2012, [in this issue]). This increase may be in part because of the fact that 5% more of these graduates have received federal financial support during the past decade, a factor needed to increase the yield of graduates entering academe. However, although there has been progress in increasing the number of doctoral programs and the proportion of graduates choosing careers in higher education, the demand for special education faculty continues to increase and significant shortages are projected.
The fact that special education faculty shortages are continuing well into the 21st century is supported by three major findings in the SEFNA study. First, over the next 5 years, special education teacher preparation programs in universities and colleges will experience an annual faculty turnover rate of 21% as a result of pending retirements. In addition, doctoral granting universities programs will lose one-half to two-thirds of their current special education faculty in the next 5 years. Second, this unprecedented faculty turnover rate will directly contribute to a demand for the production of new higher education faculty that cannot be met by the current supply of new graduates. To meet the projected demand for new special education faculty, educational leaders, and researchers, the nation’s doctoral programs will have to produce nearly 3 times the number of graduates each year. As Montrosse and Young (2012, [in this issue]) pointed out, the annual increase of new graduates needed to meet demand is far beyond current capacity. Remembering that not all new graduates seek careers in higher education, they estimate that the production rates will need to increase from nearly 300 to almost 900 graduates annually.
Another important factor for policy makers to consider is the unrelenting demand for new special education faculty to assume expanding roles in the preparation of general education teachers in elementary and secondary education. As students with disabilities spend increasingly more time in general education classrooms, there is a significant shift from special educators serving as “the teacher of record” in self-contained classrooms to a consultative/co-teaching role with general educators and related services personnel in meeting the instructional needs of all children (Smith et al., 2010). The most recent data from the U.S. Department of Education, 2011a indicate that 95% of all students with disabilities are spending at least a portion of their school day in general education settings. In fact, almost 60% of students with disabilities are receiving instruction in general education settings for more than 80% of the school day (U.S. Department of Education, 2011a). Thus, it is imperative that general and special educators are prepared to effectively collaborate within the classroom. As new evidence-based instructional strategies (e.g., response to intervention, universal design, positive behavioral supports, curriculum-based assessments) become prevalent within an “education for all” culture, a more integrated and blended paradigm for teacher education program is required (Blanton, Pugach, & Florian, 2010; Hardman, 2009). One SEFNA finding from its study of the nation’s special education teacher education programs is that these programs will be developing and offering more blended general and special education teacher preparation programs within the next 5 years (see Robb, Smith, and Montrosse, 2012, [in this issue]). However, staffing these blended teacher education programs with faculty specifically prepared to create and deliver these new programs could be a challenge.
Policy makers must also recognize the need for specialized faculty expertise in specific areas, most notably autism and early childhood. College and university faculty members will be needed who have specific expertise in concentration areas new to many teacher education programs. For example, many program coordinators at the nation’s special education teacher education programs anticipate the development of new preparation programs areas such as autism as well as early childhood education in the upcoming 5 years (see Robb, Smith, & Montrosse, 2012).
As the nation continues to struggle with a lagging economy, the national debt increases, and state funds are substantially reduced, every human services program, whether it be in education, health care, or social services, is being required to make a strong and competitive case for continued federal support. Congress has already eliminated the authorization and appropriations for numerous federal education programs, and the Obama Administration has called for consolidation across several areas of federal financial support in the preparation of new teachers and educational leaders (U.S. Department of Education, 2011b). As Congress moves forward to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the unrelenting mantra is “reduce the federal footprint.” It is clear that in these times of debt, austerity, and budget reduction, policy makers must be presented with a strong and data-based rationale for continuing the investment in special education leadership preparation. We believe clear evidence exists that documents the effectiveness and power of the OSEP leadership initiative (see Smith, Truong, et al., 2011).
The Need for the Continued Federal Role in Leadership Preparation
In examining the two decades of findings from the 2001 and 2011 national studies (Smith et al., 2001; Smith, Montrosse, et al., 2011), there is little question that the federal government has had and must continue to have a major role supporting special education leadership training. First and foremost, despite the recent downturn in the U.S. economy, national searches for new special education faculty in higher education remain robust. Given the SEFNA data on impending faculty retirements over the next several years, demand for new faculty will increase.
Second, it is highly unlikely that any state or private sector entity will take on such a role should federal funding be reduced or eventually eliminated. States will likely view the support for doctoral training as a lower priority because it is a cross-state, national program, and the 97 doctoral-granting institutions in special education distribute their graduates in over 1,100 colleges and universities around the country. Historically, special education doctoral program graduates are a mobile workforce, often moving for employment to a state other than where they received their preparation. In addition, some states do not have the capacity to prepare a sufficient number of graduates to meet their state’s need for new special education faculty, and many states do not have a doctoral program at all. In these cases, teacher education programs face considerable challenges, finding new faculty in highly competitive markets. It is the federal government that is the appropriate aegis, uniquely situated to address these challenges created by such supply and demand imbalances for special education faculty.
Third, the availability of special education faculty is critical to the demand for a public education workforce needed to carry out the federal mandate embodied in IDEA. As policy makers look at the limited options available, it is clear that the nation will gain the most leverage in meeting the instructional needs of students with disabilities under FAPE by expanding on the federal investment in the higher education faculty who are preparing the next generation of special education teachers and related services personnel. For every higher education faculty member prepared, there is a multiplier effect that will benefit the education of students with disabilities in the years to come. Each faculty member contributes to the preparation of thousands of general and special education teachers every year (see Montrosse & Young, 2012). In turn, each of these teachers becomes the key factor in generating positive educational outcomes for future generations of all students, including those with disabilities.
Finally, the federal government has a track record of effective policy in this area (Campeau, Appleby, & Stoddart, 1987; Kleinhammer-Trammil, Peters, & Fiore, 2011; Smith, Truong, et al., 2011). Four decades of a federal investment in the special education leadership program have made a profound difference in a quality teacher and related services workforce in public education. No other federal or state program beyond Part D of IDEA prepares doctoral-level graduates to be teacher educators, and thus, this is not a program that is duplicative or overlapping with other government-funded programs. In comparison with other federally supported doctoral programs, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH), the special education leadership program under Part D is more successful in producing program graduates. It yields a higher percentage of program completers (more than 70%), whereas some programs in NSF and NIMH have fallen below 50% in producing doctoral program graduates (Smith, Truong, et al., 2011). Given the job security prospects for current and future special education faculty, the federal government can be confident that the investment in leadership preparation will yield significant returns through the production of new and effective general and special education teachers. Over a 20-year span, 90% of special education doctoral program graduates have remained committed to their faculty career in higher education (see Robb, Smith, & Montrosse, 2012).
The ultimate question that will be asked by policy makers is what exactly would be lost if the federal role was reduced or eliminated? As discussed earlier, the SEFNA study reports an anticipated retirement of between one-half and two-thirds of current special education faculty at doctoral granting universities over the next several years. Doctoral granting programs are the suppliers of the next generation of faculty as well as the next generation of researchers. If the capacity of doctoral programs shrinks, the entire supply chain will be negatively affected. Using SEFNA’s findings, we estimate that without even considering the need for new, additional faculty to assume new roles in preparing tomorrow’s leaders, retirements alone will cause a 50% reduction in the current supply. As such, this would also result in a 50% reduction in the production of new special education teachers and school leaders. Approximately 300 students with disabilities per faculty member would be underserved or unserved by fully prepared teachers (see Montrosse & Young, 2012). Given that effective teacher preparation in higher education is clearly linked to improved student learning (Brownell, 2011), the achievement of students with disabilities will be compromised.
Policy Recommendations
The impending shortage of special education faculty in the United States will have serious, compounding, and, possibly, irreversible consequences on the quality of education for students with disabilities and their families. The federal government must continue and expand on its investment in the leadership program funded through OSEP. In the first-ever study of the leadership program in special education, Smith and her colleagues (2001) found that prior federal investment had multiple benefits. It resulted in measurable improvement in the generation of new knowledge on effective practices, the supply of new faculty in higher education, and the effective preparation of general and special education teachers who will assume the challenges of delivering an effective instructional program to all students, including those with disabilities.
As the nation looks to its future federal role in leadership preparation, we make the following recommendations:
Policy makers must maintain the investment in Personnel Preparation through Part D of IDEA at least at the proposed level of US $90.65 million, as recommended in the FY 2012 Senate Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill.
OSEP officials should carefully consider increasing the number of doctoral preparation projects funded through IDEA, Part D, as well as the amount of each doctoral student stipend to produce more graduates in a timely and effective manner.
Doctoral programs in higher education that receive funding through Leadership Training under IDEA Part D must reflect the importance of clinical preparation, utilize evidence-based strategies in the preparation of new teachers, promote integrated and/or blended programs that incentivize collaboration and co-teaching roles across general and special education teacher preparation, recognize and support consultative roles for special educators in schools, and focus on data-based student assessment and measuring teacher effectiveness that is directly linked to student achievement.
Footnotes
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The contents of this article were developed under a grant from U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (#H325U070001). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education.